1951-06-27

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Third report of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Picard.
Thirteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.
Fourth report of special committee appointed to consider the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto.-Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont).


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report on the problem of crossing the strait of Canso.
On September 15, 1950, a meeting was held in my office for the purpose of considering the plans and specifications of the low-level bridge prepared by the consulting engineer, Dr. P. L. Pratley. This meeting was attended by the members of the board of engineers of the strait of Canso and by representatives of both the Canadian National Railways and the department of highways and public works of the province of Nova Scotia. At this meeting it was disclosed that engineers of both the railway and the province were of the opinion that the low-level bridge as designed was not practicable, and that they could not approve such a project.
As a result I immediately reconvened the Canso board of engineers with instructions that, in the light of the discussions, they review their previous findings and recommend the best method of improving the present rail and highway facilities across the strait. I am now in receipt of the report of the reconvened board.
The report indicates that further studies were made of two projects, one of which involved improvements to the existing ferry service, and the other the construction of a causeway and lock structure. The board advise that their estimate of cost of replacing the existing railway ferry service at
present capacity would be $9 million, which figure would be increased to $13,400,000 if present capacity were to be increased by provision of larger vessels and wider ferry slips. The estimate of cost of replacement of the highway ferry service amounts to $1,287,000, or a total estimated capital expenditure for combined services of $14,687,-
000.	As to the annual operating costs as estimated for these services, the board states that the operation of the railway ferry service would require $1,587,000 and the highway ferry service $370,000, making a combined total annual operating cost of $1,957,000.
The board also reports that, in reviewing their previous findings on the causeway and lock structure, their chief object was to search for ways and mqans to reduce the probable cost. They are now of the opinion that the best site is that of the low-level bridge at Balache point as proposed in the March, 1949, report. They propose a causeway which would be entirely built of rock placed by dump-trucks working from west to east. The slopes on this causeway would be finished at about the proportion of 1 vertical to 1J horizontal, and a lock of Welland ship canal dimensions but with sliding gates would be located on the Cape Breton end of the causeway. The railway and highway diversions would be similar to those as originally proposed for the low-level bridge.
In conclusion the board reports that in view of the elimination of the bridge projects and the high cost of improving the ferry services, the causeway scheme remains as the only practical solution to the problem. The capital cost of the causeway and lock is estimated by the board at $22,760,000 and the annual operating charge at $1,130,000.
I now table the report.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I am pleased that this report has been brought down, and I would like to know whether the minister on behalf of the government can state when the construction of this causeway will be undertaken. I point out that it is very urgent to a great many people in Nova Scotia, who have been waiting for it for a long time.


Lionel Chevrier: In the first place, the report will have to be considered by the government. That has not yet been done fully. When it is, a decision will be made as to

Questions
whether or not it will be possible to imple- per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in ment the recommendations. The report will store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, be considered at the first opportunity.


Percy Chapman Black: Will copies of this report be distributed to members and a great many other people who will want them?


Lionel Chevrier: Copies are available at present, though not for every member. In connection with the first report that was tabled, I believe copies were made available to the maritime members. I have copies now, but not with the maps attached. It will be another twenty-four hours before those will be available. If hon. members who are interested will telephone my office, I shall be glad to see that they receive copies.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table order in council P.C. 3344, establishing the interest rates under the recently amended National Housing Act. The new rate to the borrower for joint loans under sections 4 and 8 is five per cent. The rates under other sections are correspondingly increased by one-half of one per cent.



QUESTIONS


WHEAT PRICES


Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many bushels of class II milling wheat were sold since August 1, 1950?
2.	At what average basic price per bushel was this wheat sold?
3.	What is the average basic price at which wheat has been sold to millers for milling into flour for consumption in Canada?


Mr. Mcllraith:: It is not the policy of the board to publish details of its operation for the crop year in which it is operating.
Note: The board posts at the close of the market each day its selling price for wheat sold:
(a)	for domestic use
(b)	for export under the international wheat agreement
(c)	for export as class II wheat.
For the period from August 1, 1950 to June 25, 1951, the average of the board's daily quotations for wheat sold under the international wheat agreement and for domestic use was $1.91 J per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. For the same period the average daily quotation for class II wheat was $2.10



TRADE WITH UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Laing:: 1.	What were the values in dollars of (a) Canadian exports to the United Kingdom; (b) Canadian imports from the United Kingdom, in each of the years 1928 to 1951, inclusive?
2.	What are the values of this two way trade in the first quarter of the present year?


George James McIlraith: Exports	Imports
Year 1928	$446,128,667	$190,756,7361929	290,294,564	194,777,6501930	235,213,959	162,632,4661931	170,597,455	109,468,0811932	178,171,680	93,508,1431933	210,697,224	97,878,2321934	270,491,857	113,415,9841935	303,500,846	116,670,2271936	395,351,950	122,971,2641937	402,062,094	147,291,5511938	339,688,685	119,292,4301939	328,099,242	114,007,4091940	508,095,949	161,216,3521941	658,228,354	219,418,9571942	741,716,647	161,112,7061943	1,032,646,964	134,965,1171944	1,235,030,206	110,598,5841945	963,237,687	140,517,4481946	597,506,175	201,433,2201947	751,198,395	189,369,8551948	686,914,277	299,502,2001949	704,955,726	307,449,8001950	469,910,011	404,213,449Jan.'1 to Mar.	113,294,454	92,141,499
31, 1951



OLD AGE PENSION


Mr. Laing:: 1.	How many pensioned veterans will be eligible for the universal old age pension of $40 per month by virtue of having attained, at January 1, 1952, the age of seventy years?
2.	How many pensioned veterans will be in the age group 65-69 as at January 1, 1952?


Mr. Mutch:: Statistical records show the
year of birth of pensioners; to ascertain the date of birth would necessitate a review of over 160,000 cases.
Moreover, in forecasting the number of pensioned veterans who would be eligible for the universal old age pension, a factor is an estimate of the number of deaths during the intervening period.
The following figures show the estimated number of all disability pensioners, including those resident outside Canada, who reach the
ages stated:
Age 70 and higher during 1952..	11,331
Age 65-69 during 1952	 11,364



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many boards or agencies of government are in existence now or have been in existence since January 1, 1946, which have paid any form of production or market subsidy or assistance to agricultural producers?
2.	What is the name of each such board or agency?
3.	What is the total that has been paid to recipients in each province by each such board or agency since January 1, 1946, or since the date of establishment of the board or agency if established after that date?
4.	How much has been paid by the government to provincial governments or apple growers in each province for tree removal and tree planting in each year since January 1, 1946?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Courlemanche:: For a copy of the payrolls and a statement of materials and equipment purchased in connection with the construction and repair work on Caplan river wharf, during the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950.



WORK AT MOUTH OF FOX RIVER, QUE.

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of the payrolls and a statement of materials used in connection with the work done at the mouth of Fox river (Riviere au Renard), county of Gaspe, during the year 1950.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon.  L. S.@: That when this house adjourns on completion of its current business after returning from attending on the giving of ro^al assent in the Senate to the bills which will have been passed, this house stand adjourned until October 9, 1951, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the notice of this motion was published, some hon. members have asked why the hour of eleven o'clock on Tuesday, October 9, was being fixed instead of the hour of three o'clock in the afternoon. The reason is that this house adopted a motion providing that during the remainder of this session it shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning instead of three
Business of the House o'clock in the afternoon. An additional reason is that we hope by meeting at eleven o'clock in the morning that we can have prorogation by noon; that parliament can be prorogued until three o'clock that afternoon, and the opening of the new session can take place the same day, thus saving one day in the time required for the usual formalities. Needless to say, the adjournment will make it possible for Mr. Speaker to call parliament together should anything occur in the international or even in the domestic situation before October 9 which will make it desirable for parliament to meet.


Mr. Coldwell:: Then do we understand that October 9 is a firm date, unless it is found necessary to call the house together before that time?


Mr. St. Laurent:: It is a firm date for the reconvening of this session, and I hope the situation will be such that, within an hour or so after reconvening, parliament can be prorogued until three o'clock in the afternoon for the opening of the new session.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: In connection with the current business, may I ask if the select committee to assist Mr. Speaker in connection with the proposed revision of the rules of the house is expected to meet before October 9, so that with the opening of the new session some experiments may be made with changes in the rules, particularly with respect to the hours of sitting?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think some experimental changes will be tried out during the new session, but I would not hope for so much as a complete and definite report by the committee at the very opening of that session. I can give the house immediately the assurance that it would be the desire of the government to move as early as possible in the next session for the reconvening of that committee, and I trust nothing may happen in the interval to make it necessary to change its personnel.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: I should like to offer a suggestion which I think might be of some assistance to that committee, whether it meets during the intervening period or not until the opening of the new session. It is our good fortune to have here in Ottawa a man who I am sure holds the complete confidence of members in all parts of the house. I refer to Dr. Arthur Beauchesne. We follow his rules on procedure. While the committee must be entirely responsible for any recommendations, I believe it would be highly desirable if Dr. Beauchesne could in some way be brought into the general discussion

Business of the House and asked to prepare recommendations, out of his long experience, for the consideration of the committee when it meets.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Under the resolution adopted by this house the committee has the right to send for persons and papers. It may very well be that amongst the members of the committee there will be those who will feel, as does the leader of the opposition, that very helpful assistance could be obtained from Dr. Beauchesne.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am greatly reassured if my understanding is correct that there will be no further attempt to try out new rules or regulations during this session, as was the case last night. If I am required to go into details, I shall be glad to do so. Last night an hon. member, quite within his rights, asked to have certain privileges granted to him. I should like to know if that is going to be permitted for the remainder of this session.


Mr. Benidickson:: We can do anything
with unanimous consent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting assistance
from Kenora and other places. I am asking the Prime Minister, through, you, sir, whether any deviations from the existing rules will be permitted during this session as an experiment, or shall we continue to be governed by your ruling of last night?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think any
experiments will be undertaken during this session. As to What the house will choose to do with respect to the business that remains to be dealt with, that is a matter for the house to decide. I can assure the hon. member that the government will not initiate anything as an experiment at this stage of the present session.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: I think I may be permitted to speak this morning about this matter, Which has been discussed for a long time without success. I have been sitting here as a member for a very long time. According to my knowledge, and I say this without any flattery, with one possible exception you are the only one, Mr. Speaker, who has made his own rulings. They have always been fair. I cannot congratulate you, but I can tell you that the house appreciates the way you deal with us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. It has to do with Mr. Speaker's announcement to the house on Monday that he had received a communication from the president of the consultative assembly of the Council of Europe, inviting this parliament to send observers to the session of the council commencing September 24 next. Will the Prime Minister state what action the government may take concerning this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was some minutes after ten o'clock when the hon. member telephoned to my office in this connection. Had I had more time to do so, I would have prepared a carefully worded statement to answer the question, but I think hon. members would prefer to have it answered less formally and immediately.
This is an invitation which you, sir, stated had been addressed not to the government of Canada but to the parliament of Canada. Of course if the invitation were to be accepted I imagine that there would have to be some provision made for the expenses of any delegation that would go there representing this parliament, and that the government would have to take the responsibility of making the required recommendation to parliament. Because of that, and because of the interest which naturally attaches to this matter, it has been under consideration by the government, but no decision has yet been reached. There are many factors about which we are seeking to obtain more enlightenment. We are in communication with our representatives, both in London and in Washington, in that regard.
One of the factors to which consideration has to be given is the apparent fact that this Council of Europe is made up not of representatives of the governments of the countries but of the national groups of several countries in Europe. This may be all to the good, but it is somewhat of a departure, because what they would be doing is something which would have a profound effect upon the foreign policies of the governments of all those countries. According to the manner in which our parliamentary institutions are set up, foreign policy is usually a responsibility of the government of the country, and is usually handled through the foreign office of

the country. It would seem that this is a new way of going into matters that are of such great concern to the peoples and the governments of all the free countries of the world.
There is another matter which has given us some concern, and that is that the form of the invitation to this parliament seems to differ from the form of invitation extended to the houses of the United States congress. They have been invited to appoint a delegation to meet a delegation of the Council of Europe, and to have discussions with that delegation; whilst the invitation to this parliament, through you, sir, has been to send observers to attend the sittings of the council itself. We are curious to know if that is an intentional difference, or if it is just an accidental difference in the wording of the invitation. If it is intentional, we should like to know why the distinction is being made. We are also trying to ascertain whether invitations similar to the one addressed to this parliament have been sent to the parliaments of other commonwealth countries.
There is also the factor that it is nominally a council of Europe. For a long time there has been a Pan-American union of the republics of the western hemisphere, and they have never had observers from elsewhere attending their meetings. As a matter of fact we have not, because of our monarchical traditions, been included in that group. If the council has for its purpose the setting up of a federation of European states, I would say that we had no observers attending the Charlottetown or Quebec conferences at the time we were discussing our confederation, or at the time we were discussing union with Newfoundland. We are seeking to explore all these possible implications of the invitation that has been addressed to this parliament.
There would be some rather inconvenient features, in view of the fact that this meeting is scheduled for September 24, and we are contemplating an important session of our own parliament early in October. But that would probably not be an insuperable difficulty, nor would the difficulty arising from the fact that at that time of the year we usually have to provide a representative delegation to the meeting of the United Nations.
These are matters about which we have not yet obtained all the information and enlightenment we would wish to have before deciding to recommend an appropriation to parliament for official participation in the activities of this body. But the meeting will be taking place before parliament reconvenes; and if it is felt that we should take
Inquiries of the Ministry the responsibility of a recommendation to parliament, in supplementaries or otherwise when parliament reconvenes, I would expect that it should be a delegation representative of the complexion of the house and not merely a delegation representing the government party in the house; and I would expect to discuss it with the leader of the opposition.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, as I spent two days at Strasbourg last summer, perhaps I might be allowed to say just one word. I realize all the difficulties, but I also realize that at that assembly there was expressed a great desire that it might be possible for the commonwealth nations other than the United Kingdom to be represented. I say again that I realize all the difficulties, but I hope this suggestion may be considered. The head of it is that great European, Mr. Spaak.
I might make one further comment. As the Prime Minister has said, I think the delegation ought to be representative not of governments but of the various parliaments concerned. For instance, the United Kingdom delegation was proportionate to the members of the two parties in the United Kingdom government.



C. D. HOWE COMPANY LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO* REMARKS OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I shall be capable of using proper restraint of language. I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat, because if he were, I, as his neighbour and friend, would not have to stand up and defend him. I regret very much that the charge was made against the minister of arranging government contracts with his own family company. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has no family company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: He has no connection with that company. If the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has the courtesy and courage to do so, he should withdraw this charge.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know that I should allow debate on this subject at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Fort William has raised the subject, I might say definitely that, far from

C. D. Howe Company Limited withdrawing, I repeat the statement that it is a family company and that these contracts should not have been given to that company.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the leader of the opposition has any charge of any wrongdoing whatsoever in connection with any contracts given by this government, the place for any such charge to be made is here in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the Prime Minister has finished his remarks.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the leader of the opposition wants to make any charge, the government will welcome the setting up of a special committee or the referring of the charge to the public accounts committee where it can be fully investigated.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege simiply to point out to the Prime Minister that I did raise this matter in this house and that when I raised it in the house I used the well-known term applied to cases of this kind, namely, nepotism. As I think the Prime Minister will recall, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in the house and made some comment on that matter at that time. I for one would welcome a full inquiry into the transactions of the C. D. Howe Company by a royal commission,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -but not by a muzzled public accounts committee which never inquires into anything which the government does not want examined.


Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the opposition's reputation with royal commissions is not very good.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the matter was raised in the house, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce declared that he had no connection with this company and that he had. not had any connection with it since 1935. I took it at that time that his statement of fact was accepted. In spite of the statement made to that effect in. this house, the leader of the opposition still attempts to smear the reputation of one whose reputation for devotion to the country's interest and for integrity is as high as that of any member in this house. The leader of the opposition

is just following a practice which he may think is good politics but which I deprecate, namely, the policy of making smear remarks such as he made in connection with the George T. Davie Company which he stated had been incorporated-


George Alexander Drew: That is absolutely untrue.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -through the professional activities of the firm of St. Laurent and others in Quebec. That is something which was done before I came into this house of parliament, and something which it was quite unnecessary for the hon. gentleman to refer to. In spite of the denial of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he had any connection with this company since 1935, the hon. member still chooses to call it the family company of Mr. C. D. Howe.


An hon. Member:: It is.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think that is the kind
of smearing remark that will not produce any good results for the one who makes it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has obviously lost his temper to the point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -where I leave it to you to use your own judgment with regard to whether the word "smear" is a parliamentary word or not. I make no request in regard to the word, because the Prime Minister has used the term in a way that is a reflection on his office as Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that I used
the term "family company". The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in this house that he had dissociated himself personally from that company. The records of the company are those of a private company and therefore do not disclose the disposition of the shares of the company in a way that makes it possible for anyone to do other than accept that statement. But let me say that I used the term "family company" advisedly because his son and son-in-law are actively engaged in that company, and I understand that his son and son-in-law are members of the family. I would point out still further that when the minister, with the immense powers he has, gave to this family company the handling of the $30 million contract on the Chalk River reactor he was handing that contract to a company bearing his name in which his son and son-in-law would gain advantage, and that if there is one thing in this house that is peculiarly

under the exclusive authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce it is everything connected with atomic energy.
I would point out further that when this government handed this contract for supervision of the construction at Seven Islands to the C. D. Howe Company Limited, his son-in-law was sent to Montreal to deal with the contract particularly. That is a matter of record. When the Prime Minister used the term "smearing" in regard to that, may I point out to him that there is an obligation on the members of the government at all times not to hand out contracts to members of their own family any more than to themselves, and there is also an obligation on the members of the government to deal with these matters in a way that will remove any suggestion that we should be unduly concerned about the enormous contracts running to hundreds of millions of dollars which are being handled by the Minister of Defence Production. It is having regard to the fact that contracts for such things as radar stations, and other matters of that kind, which are not discussed in this house in detail, are being handed out by that minister that we must examine with some care the methods by which that minister does deal with contracts under his exclusive authority.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am just sorry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -that the leader of the opposition has not the sense to withdraw this untrue charge.



ENEMY PROPERTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders'of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I regret that he is not here now, but he can take it as notice. In view of the fact that a state of war with Germany is officially to come to an end in the near future, will the Secretary of State say when claims for war damage will begin to be paid from the funds now held by the custodian of enemy property? I direct this to the attention of the Secretary of State and the government because a number of claims dating back as far as the Athenia are still outstanding.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think that I can supply the
hon. member with some information. The matter of setting up a special commission to determine the classes of claims that should be recognized against enemy property held
Inquiries of the Ministry by the custodian is under active consideration. It has been decided to set up that kind of commission, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is considering the selection of one or more commissioners to whom a commission will be issued under the Inquiries Act to determine what classes of claims should be recognized against those funds, and what priorities, if any, should be established between those classes of claims.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you. I hope that this commission will be set up without further delay.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Well, we are appreciative of the desirability of as much dispatch as possible in dealing with these claims.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	[DOT]
Mr.  A. J. Baier@The Baiilefords: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received representations from the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan for assistance in the construction of a bridge on the meridian line between the two provinces north of Lloydminster? If so, did he reply to the requests?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: To the best of my recollection I did receive a letter from the government of the province of Saskatchewan, and I have replied to it. I would not give the contents of these two communications without having the consent of the provinces to table the documents.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for The Battlefords? Has the minister brought down the return which was ordered having to do with the correspondence concerning a bridge on the meridian between Alberta and Saskatchewan near Lloydminster?


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot recall that this correspondence was tabled. I think it is of recent date. I know I have answered the letters, and to the best of my memory I did give about the same answer that was given in the case of the Ottawa bridge at Pembroke, namely, that we would consider taking part in the construction of a bridge if the two provinces made contributions; but that is speaking from memory, and I would not want to be tied down to the exact terms of what I have just said.


Major James William Coldwell: There is correspondence that will be brought down, I take it?

Dominion Elections Act


Alphonse Fournier: If a motion was made for production of papers, I shall ask the consent of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to bring down the documents.



MOVEMENT OUT OF STORAGE AND FROM HEAD OF LAKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I cannot by way of preface to my question state the circumstances under which it arises, but what I want to find out on behalf of western farm organizations is this: What is the present position as to the expedition with which wheat is being taken out of elevator storage and from the farms, and what is the probability of the wheat being moved before the new wheat crop comes in?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry that I have not an up-to-date statement, because my hon. friend did not give me notice of this question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: But I have in mind that when I made the statement in answer to his question about a week ago I said that it was expected to move by June 23 about 16 million bushels of wheat. I saw a letter from the chairman of the wheat board this week to the effect that 15,900,000 bushels had been moved, so that the quota for the period has been met, I do know that the transportation committee which has been established in the Department of Transport, consisting of the railways, the carriers and our own officials, has arranged for a quota to be moved in a certain period of time. Whether that quota has been met by this day, I am unable to say, but I will try to have an up-to-date statement for my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? I do not know whether the minister has the information, but he mentioned what has been done. Has he any record of the amount that has to be moved that is still in storage? Will he be able to get that when he makes a further report?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I will.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 404, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 405, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Knowles:: On division.


Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks before we go into committee on this bill, because to me it is a most important measure. I feel that the administration of justice, and the manner in which we treat the judiciary of Canada, goes to the very root of the foundations of our democracies. Magna Carta, which is still part of the law of the commonwealth countries, including Canada, is often quoted in the house.
In Canada one of the things in which we take greatest pride is the impartial administration of justice, and the high type of the members of the judiciary; for it is fundamental to the well-being of every nation that all the citizens of a country have due respect for law and constituted authority.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) on Monday last, speaking about amendments to the Criminal Code, repeated the oft-quoted statement that under British justice a man is deemed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. As we know, that is not the law of all countries. But to uphold that principle in Canada, we must continue to have a capable and competent bench to administer the law.
So far as respect for law and authority in Canada is concerned, I believe that Canadians, perhaps more than people in other countries, have every reason to be proud of the administration of law and justice in this country. Under our set-up, in administering the law all judges must follow legal precedents. They also must follow a code of interpretation in their administration of the law, one which has been established for generations. These precedents are binding upon them. They must obey and follow the judgments of superior courts.

Judges must also take into consideration changing law to meet changing conditions. To guide them they have a mass of precedents from courts of record. This is not so in connection with committees or commissions. During the war, for instance, a rentals administrator was appointed to deal with problems affecting real property. Very often administrators of this type, who had never studied law, and had no knowledge of it, with the exception of the acts they were to interpret, were given power to interpret the law. In many cases judgments given on one day would be entirely opposite from those given the day following, in exactly similar circumstances. Under this procedure there does not seem to be any way of checking such things, but in my opinion the results did not add either to efficiency or to respect for law.
In Ontario we have a municipal board which administers and deals with a wide variety of legal matters. The members of the board, with the possible exception of the chairman, are not members of the legal profession. They have not had the long experience that judicial officers have had. The workmen's compensation board is another example. Then, if we want to take an example from the federal field, there is the wartime prices and trade board, in almost every branch of which there are people engaged in interpreting the law, for the enactment of which they themselves are responsible.
One of the fundamental principles of British justice is that there shall be a distinguishing difference between the judge, the prosecuting attorney, the jury, the witnesses, the plaintiff and the defendant; and we must bear that always in mind. We should make sure that all those appointed to high positions on the bench are able to perform in a capable manner the functions thereof. Therefore it naturally follows in my opinion that these men should be paid adequate salaries, in view of the importance of the high office they hold.
As I suggested yesterday to the Minister of Justice, if proper consideration had been given to the amendments introduced in 1946, at which time the salaries of judges were increased, it would not have been necessary to bring this bill before the house. Even at this late date I suggest to the Minister of Justice that the provision he has made for county and district court judges should be reviewed, because I think he will find that the increase is not sufficient. I think the minister will agree that the salaries paid to county court judges, and perhaps the salaries to be paid, are completely out of line with
Judges Act
salaries paid to others for work which is, if anything, of less importance to the community.
Yesterday the minister referred to New York state, where county court judges having comparable jurisdiction are paid a minimum of $16,000 per annum.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does the hon. member recommend that we pay county court judges in Canada $16,000?


George Stanley White: No, I
am not even suggesting that. I am only pointing out that judges in New York state having practically the same jurisdiction are paid at a much higher rate. I am not suggesting at all that they should be paid $16,000.
Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are paid not quite but almost double the salaries of county court judges. May I point out to the minister that, having regard to the volume of work done, and the importance of the respective courts to the public, it seems to me that so far as Ontario is concerned there is no practical reason why the county court judges should not be paid at the same rate as the supreme court judges, because, in Ontario at least, the work of county court judges has greatly increased throughout the year. Only recently their jurisdiction was increased, thereby increasing their work; and I believe that in the very near future there will be a further increase in the jurisdiction of the county court, thus further increasing the work.
I listened yesterday to the observations of hon. members who are not members of the legal profession and, while I have no criticism of what they said-it is their right and privilege to speak-there are certain matters with which they dealt and with which, after some years of experience, I am familiar. May I place these facts before the minister. Naturally I am more familiar with my county and the surrounding ones than I am with other jurisdictions. However, what I shall say about the county of Hastings can be applied with equal force to practically every other county in Ontario.
The county of Hastings is the largest in Ontario, with a population of well over 80,000, and is increasing every year. It consists of thirty-five municipalities, one town with a population of well over 10,000, and a city with a population of 27,000, as well as several other smaller towns and villages. Many years ago, when I began practising in the county, the population was not anything like what it is today. At that time there were two county court judges and, in addition, the local master of the supreme court. Today there is only one county court judge.

Judges Act
and there is no local master. The county court judge now handles and hears all matters that formerly came before the local master of the supreme court.
In my county there are twelve division courts, and in 1950, the last year for which there is a record, the county court judge spent seventy-three days in dealing with division court actions alone. The city of Belleville division court handled 1,379 cases. In addition, they had 133 judgment summonses and some fifty transcripts from other courts. The number of writs issued in the county court in * 1950 was 131, and the approximate number in 1951 will exceed 200, thus giving some indication of the greatly increased amount of work in the county court.
I have before me a list of the county court non-jury cases scheduled for hearing in April, 1951. There were fourteen cases set down for trial, and all fourteen were heard. I also have a list of cases set down for the general sessions of the peace and jury sittings held in June of this year. I find there were four criminal cases, two charges of perjury, one of bigamy, and one of theft. All cases were heard. There were five jury cases and eight non-jury cases. I point out that the average jury case takes practically two days and a non-jury case one day. The county court judge naturally hears all motions and other matters pertaining to county court actions. In addition, the county court judge handles a large number of matters relating to actions in the supreme court. In one year the county court judge of my county will hear from fifty to seventy-five motions pertaining to supreme court matters. Up to the middle of April of this year twenty-seven such motions had been heard. I would point out to the minister that there are many cases heard in the county court as the result of consent being given to the jurisdiction of that court inasmuch as the amount involved is beyond the statutory limit set for the county court.
I have referred to motions heard by the county court judge in his capacity as local judge of the supreme court. On one motion in which I was interested it took two full days to hear the argument. I know the average motion does not take anything like two days, but that is an indication of the time that is spent on certain matters. In addition, in the various county towns one week of five sitting days is usually allotted for the supreme court. It has become the practice, at least in my county, that cases which are not heard by the supreme court judge are, by his direction, handed over to

the county court judge, and I have noticed from the press that a number of supreme court cases have been heard by the county court judge.
In addition to all these various matters, the county court judge hears appeals from magistrates' decisions. He handles mechanics lien actions, and I noticed in the papers recently that there were no less than fifty-two naturalization applications to be heard before him. In addition to all these cases, there are innumerable provincial acts which provide for reference >or appeal to the local county court judge. I should like to refer to a few of them: the Adoption Act, the Agricultural Societies Act, the Assessment Act, the Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act, the Bonus Limitation Act, the Bulk Sales Act, the Cemetery Act, the Children of Unmarried Parents Act, the Conditional Sales Act, the Children's Protection Act, the Costs of Distress Act, the County Courts Act, the County Judges Act, the Creditors Relief Act, the Dependents Relief Act, the Ditches and Water Courses Act, the Division Courts Act, ithe Election Act, the Farm Loans Act, the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act, the High Schools Act, the Highway Improvement Act, the Highway Traffic Act, the House of Refuge Act, the Industrial Schools Act, the Judicature Act, the Jurors Act, the Juvenile and Family Courts Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Line Fences Act, the Liquor Control Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Local Improvements Act, the Master and Servants Act, the Mechanics Lien Act, the Mental Hospitals Act, the Money Lenders Act, the Municipal Act, the Municipal Drainage Act, the Notaries Act, the Partnership Act, the Power Commission Act, the Provincial Land Tax Act, the Public Schools Act, the Public Works Act, the Police Act, the Railways Act, the Registration of Deeds Act, the Property of Religious Institutions Act, the School Sites Act, the Separate Schools Act, the Snow Roads and Fences Act, the Succession Duty Act, the Surrogate Courts Act, the Trustee Act, the Vendors and Purchasers Act, the Voters Lists Act, the Wages Act, the Woodmen's Lien for Wages Act.
In addition to all these provincial acts, there are a certain number of federal statutes under which certain matters are referred to the local county court judge. In my county there is a full time court reporter, and it has been found that he is unable to handle the volume of work. He has had to have an assistant appointed. As was pointed out yesterday, in the smaller centres the judge is often regarded as the first citizen of the community. He

must necessarily give very freely of his time, and like all other citizens he is expected to support every worthy cause.
There are many other duties that the county judges perform of which the minister is well aware. I for one certainly feel that the men who are appointed to these posts, and who are cut off from earning additional salary in any way, should be paid a salary large enough to compensate them for the services they perform, and they should not have to be constantly worried over financial matters. Yesterday an hon. member from British Columbia referred to a judge in his province who, in order to educate his children, had to resign and go back to practice. I should like to tell the minister about a county court judge in my district who, when the salary was $5,000, came to see me about his son who was at law school. His daughter was also taking training in a hospital. The judge told me that at that time he had borrowed every cent he could on his insurance policies in order to finance the education of the boy at law school and to assist his daughter, and that it was absolutely impossible for him to continue on the salary he was receiving and keep the boy at law school. Despite all that was said yesterday by various members, I do not think that anybody in Canada expects or desires that the members of our judiciary should be constantly worried over financial matters.
In support of that I would like to read part of an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 17:
Neither are judges' salaries substantial when measured against their responsibilities. The courts stand guard over the rights and liberties of every Canadian. We expect from them the highest standards of wisdom, of integrity, of independence. Judges must be, in a very real sense, above the common level; above the passions and anxieties of everyday life.
It is a great distinction to be a judge. Because of that, many lawyers have sacrificed their financial interests, and those of their dependents, to enter the judiciary. But it is not fair to expect them to do so; it is not fair to reward such men with little more than prestige. They should be enabled to live on a scale at least comparable with that they would otherwise have enjoyed.
This is not merely in their own interest; it is in the public's interest as well. If the law is to be maintained, if justice is to be dispensed in accordance with our proudest traditions; the ablest lawyers must be attracted to the bench; and once there, sustained in a manner befitting their duties and their abilities. We can economize on many things, but not on this. When it comes to justice, we can afford nothing but the best.
I suggest to the minister that the sentiments and thoughts there set out sum up the whole matter.
I have tried in a brief and general way to state some of the many and varied duties
Judges Act
performed by the average county court judge. Some may say that what applies in my county does not apply elsewhere. So far as the county of Peterborough is concerned, which adjoins my own, I know from personal experience that the same conditions exist there.
I would like to say just a word in regard to the uncalled-for comments made yesterday as to the political affiliations of judges prior to their appointment. In my district we have a system under which the four county court judges rotate. At the present time, as it happens, all four judges were formerly Liberals and were appointed by this government. But after the long years I have practised, and especially after the twelve years I have been a member of this house, I have no hesitation in saying that in appearing before those judges who prior to their appointment were of a political faith different from mine, I have never had the slightest cause even to suspect that by reason of political affiliation any discrimination of any kind was made against me. In fact, in fairness to those men I should say that I have often felt they leaned over backwards a long way in order to be fair in any matter with which I was connected.
I suggest to the minister again that he is making an error in the scale of salaries he is fixing for the county court judges. If he feels that he cannot increase their scale to that of the supreme court judges, I do suggest that the amount a county court judge receives should not be less than $10,000 a year. As I said before, and as I think the minister will agree, the adjustment made at this time will fix the salary for a long time to come; and I am sure that when this is through the minister will want to feel that he has made an adjustment which will be satisfactory both to the public and to those who will receive this increase. I suggest that even at this late date the minister reconsider the matter and bring in an amendment to the bill to provide that the county court judges shall receive not less than $10,000 a year.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: I
wish to say a few words on this motion for second reading. Yesterday the house by vote made a definite decision on the measure; consequently I shall not delay matters unduly this morning. I would like to make it clear that I give place to no member of this house in my respect for the judges of our country and the positions they hold. It is largely because I respect the judges that I object to their being made a privileged class, with privileges to which very few in this country

Judges Act
can aspire-and not only privileges for themselves, but for their families as well, which I do not think is at all in accord with our democracy.
Yesterday the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) referred to Judge Wilson, of Prince George, who, as he said, found it necessary to resign his position in order to educate his family; and I believe that matter was also referred to by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). At the moment I do not know just what salary this judge was receiving; but if a judge, getting whatever salary goes with that position, cannot educate his family, then God help the great majority of the families of Canada, because at that rate they can hope for no education at all. If a person cannot educate his children on $5,000 or $6,000 or $10,000 a year, what about those who do not receive $1,000 a year? What is going to happen to their families? What is really happening is that a small class in this country are able to educate their children so that those children may and do follow them in these high positions, while the rest are hewers of wood and drawers of water. As long as we accentuate that relationship instead of diminishing it, ve are not doing the best we can and should tor our country.
I said I honour and respect the judges and the positions they hold. I honour and respect them not only as judges but as men, and I honour and respect mankind as a whole: the farmer who tills the fields, the miner who takes his life in his hands in order to bring coal out of the mine, the lumberman who works in the forests, the men who carry on the dangerous operations of our railways. Surely we should respect these men and make provision for them after they have done their part in producing the wealth of this country and in building its capital; for I can tell hon. members that the capital of this country consists of the wages the workers earned but did not get. If we do not make fairly decent provision for the great mass of the people-and we are not doing that today-why should we make luxurious provision for the judges and their wives? I have not received any answer to that. Let me say again that I give place to no one in this house in my regard for the judicial institutions of my country and the persons who hold judgeships.
Yesterday the minister made the point-I think I am right in saying this-that the lower court judges had received only one increase since 1920. I think that speaks for itself. I believe it just shows that their position as of 1920 was so much better than that of the average citizen that it was neither necessary nor desirable to give them

an increase. Then the minister referred to the representations made by Percy Bengough, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, on behalf of the judges. I am sure that it will be a great joy to Percy Bengough to know that anything he presented to the government has received attention, because to my knowledge Percy Bengough and the whole executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada have been making submissions to this government for years, and this is the first time in my twenty-one years in the house that I have heard any minister speak with approbation of the requests made by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The world is improving.


Angus MacInnis: All right, then; I am going to give you something to improve upon. I have in my hand a memorandum presented to the government of Canada by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada on Tuesday, April 10, 1951. I wonder if the minister remembers what this memorandum contains? Did he read it, or has he forgotten it already, or was he there when it was presented? In any case, what is he going to do about it? This organization made recommendations concerning old age pensions. When the Old Age Pensions Act was being discussed here last week, I did not see the smiling face of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) bob up and say: Mr. Speaker, before this act is passed I want to put on the record what Percy Bengough said on April 10, 1951, when he appeared with the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada before the cabinet. There was nothing about that. Percy Bengough and the other members of the executive who signed the report were completely forgotten and ignored. There was present on that occasion: Percy Bengough, president; J. A. Whitebone, vice president from the maritimes; Claude Jodoin, vice president; William Jenoves, vice president; Carl E. Berg, vice president; Birt Showier, vice president; Gordon Cushing, general secretary treasurer.
The Minister of Justice made no mention of the proposals they made to the government. They were not speaking only for a few judges; they were not speaking for people who were already getting generous pensions, particularly when you compare them with the $480 that Percy Bengough will have to get along with, I suppose, when he is no longer able to carry on, and the amount upon which Angus Maclnnis will have to get along with when he is no longer able to carry on. Let us see what they proposed in regard to old age pensions. The proposals are listed as follows:
1.	That the means test be abolished.

2.	That all old age and blind pensions become the sole responsibility of the federal government.
3.	That the monthly pension payment be increased to $65 as a preliminary and interim measure while the machinery is being developed for the implementation of a full social security scheme.
4.	That the pensionable age be reduced for men to 65 and for women to 60.
5.	That suitable housing arrangements be undertaken for all recipients where such is needed.
I said I did not hear the Minister of Justice put in a plug for any of those proposals. But when he comes to take up the case of those who have, as I said, a pension which provides luxurious living in comparison with the pensions the aged people have, he quotes with approval the person whose submissions the government have ignored for the last fifteen or twenty years they have been in office.
Then let me turn to health insurance. Percy Bengough and the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada had something to say about health insurance, but so far this session I have not heard the Minister of Justice supporting their claim. On page 5 of the submission they say:
Illness is still our greatest social and economic problem. More suffering is caused to individuals and families through sickness than from anything else. More financial troubles arise as a result of illness than from any other cause. Sickness frustrates production and will interfere with efforts to build up our defences more than all other factors combined. The time has long since passed when this problem should have been tackled with the will to solve it. Late as it is, immediate efforts should now be made.
I say the minister made no claims in regard to that. I could go through the whole of the submissions, all of them dealing with matters that vitally affect the people of this country, the people who are continually on the verge of poverty; and he has not raised his voice to help them.
I want to say a word about the salaries and the increases made.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Before the hon. member goes any further, will he let me ask him a question? If I understood him correctly, he said that during the past fifteen or twenty years the demands of labour, and particularly the demands of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, have been completely ignored by this government.


Angus MacInnis: I did not specify particularly the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, but the facts speak for themselves. So far as social security is concerned, I say that their claims and their representations have been completely ignored. Anything that has been done is paltry in the face of the need, and has been pushed from various quarters; so I do not believe the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada itself or its officers would say that they had any material results from their submissions.
Judges Act


Paul-Émile Côté: If the hon.
member will allow me, I should like-


Angus MacInnis: No, I will not allow my hon. friend to make a speech, but I will answer any question he wants to ask. If he wants to make a speech or a statement, he will have to do it on his own time.


Paul-Émile Côté: I just wish to ask my hon. friend a question.


Angus MacInnis: Very well.


Paul-Émile Côté: Was my hon. friend present when the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada made their annual representations to the cabinet on April 10? If he was present, did he hear the Prime Minister of Canada answer each of the demands of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, give the explanation, and finally state that the social legislation which Canada has on the statute books had kept pace with the demands of labour in that regard?


Angus MacInnis: I told the parliamentary
assistant that I was willing to be asked a question, but that I was not going to listen to a statement. He can make his own speeches. Obviously I was not present. I am not a member of the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon.
member to say that it has occurred to me that the question which has been raised may tend to get the house away from the discussion of the bill. If the hon. member for Vancouver East wishes to answer the question, I would not of course stop him at this time. But may I remind the house that, after he has answered the question, the house should discuss the principle of the bill.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. But I was replying to the statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday; and I thought the same rules operated today as those which operated yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is
answering any statement that was made yesterday by the Minister of Justice, I assure him that the same rules of debate prevail now as prevail at any other time. One of the rules of debate in this house is that, on second reading, the principle of the bill before the house at that time should be discussed, and the principle only.


Angus MacInnis: To continue my answer to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I would say that I was not present. I have not the slightest doubt that the Prime Minister made wonderful explanations. Whether those explanations were completely satisfactory to the trades and labour congress, I do not know. But as to implementing

Judges Act
in legislation the things they asked for-and that is the only effective answer-the answer is nil.
I have now what I suppose is an advance copy of the bill, and we have information that we did not have yesterday. With this information before us we perhaps realize why the amounts in the bill were not stated in the resolution. The resolution was placed on the order paper some considerable time ago; and it would not look well to have these amounts public when we were discussing the Old Age Assistance Act. It should not be overlooked that the judge's salary is not just the amount that appears in this bill as his salary, because there is also the pension that must be considered to be a part of his salary. I have tried to do some quick figuring here. I take the salary of the chief justice of one of the provinces, $16,000. His pension will be two-thirds of that amount, or about $10,666. Every year, therefore, that the judge draws his salary of $16,000, this government is guaranteeing $10,666 that he will get when he retires in ten years' time if he wants to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I think I must take exception to that statement. It is not every year that he draws $16,000 that he is getting a guarantee of $10,000. In the supreme court the judge may serve until he dies, but in any event he serves until he is 75; and the period between his retirement and his death is quite a short one. Therefore my hon. friend's statement could not be correct.


Angus MacInnis: I will not dispute the point with the minister, but my understanding was that a judge could resign. That was the law at least a few years ago. He could retire after ten years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. My hon. friend is quite wrong about that. I will deal with the matter at the proper time.


Angus MacInnis: All right. In any case, he may receive a pension just as long as he has been receiving salary. It depends on how long he will live. If he resigns or retires at 75,' if that is the retiring age-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is not-not for provincial supreme court judges. They do not have to retire until death.


Angus MacInnis: We are not dealing with judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. We are dealing with judges of the supreme courts of the provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, we are dealing with the judges of the supreme courts of the provinces; but under the terms of the British North America Act they cannot be retired from office unless they wish to go themselves, at any time before their death.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they may retire after fifteen years and draw pension.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They may retire only if the governor in council considers it to be in the public interest; and if my hon. friend uses any imagination in relation to that point, he will know that it will not likely be a voluntary retirement, but that it will likely be because of insobriety or something of the kind.


Angus MacInnis: Is it not a fact that there are judges now who have retired-and who have retired before reaching their seventy-fifth year-who are not only drawing their pensions but are engaged in other remunerative employment which has no effect on their pensions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The only occasion on which they retire before they reach the age of 75 is where they have some infirmity which prevents them from the proper exercise of their duty. I will deal with this whole matter in detail at the proper point.


Angus MacInnis: I happen to know of judges who have retired, so I speak with knowledge of the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not confusing two things, the situation with regard to judges who retire voluntarily under section 22 and those retired compulsorily under section 29?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I should point out that it is not in order for hon. members to ask questions at this stage.


Angus MacInnis: In any case, I said when I began that I was not going to detain the house for long, and I am sorry that I have spoken longer than I had intended. But here we are making provisions, as we have for other judges, that put the judges in a privileged class, that take them out of contact with the great mass of the people with whom they have to deal in the courts of law. That is not a good thing. A court of law indeed should be more than a court of law; it should be a court of justice. But it cannot be a court of justice unless the judge has knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the lives lived by the people who come before him. If he has those attributes, he will not just administer the law; he will dispense justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the: second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.

On	section 1-Salaries of	judges	Of
exchequer court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman,	before	we
enter upon a discussion of the sections of the bill, there are one or two points which I should like to clear up. If I do so, I think discussion may be facilitated.
First of all, I desire to make a correction in the Hansard report of June 26, 1951, where I said, as reported at page 4710:
I have before me a table showing the details of farm cash income from 1926 to 1950, the base being 100 in the year 1926. This table shows that in 1950 the farm cash income had risen to 235-5.
This table shows that in 1950 the farm cash income has risen to 235-5. I was then asked by the hon. member for Acadia: "What about farm costs?" and my reply was as follows, as reported at page 4810 of Hansard:
This is cash income, after taking care of costs.
This statement of mine is incorrect. The figures which I quoted represent cash income received by the farmers from farm operations. It does not include the farmer's income from Prairie Farm Assistance Act, from investments, or from any source other than farm income. Nor does it include the value of home consumed produce and inventories. In the table that was presented for farm cash income the figure shown for 1938 is 68-6. I mention that because this is the year before which the dominion bureau of statistics had no comparative data as regards net farm income. That was the point that the hon. member for Acadia was making. Now, our net farm income table starts at 1938, and in that context the index is shown as 100 as compared with this other index figure for farm cash income for 1938 at 68-6.
By 1950 this net farm income had gone up to 377-5. Thus the increase in net farm income after the payment of costs from 100 in 1938 to 377-5 in 1950 is even more favourable, much more favourable, to my argument than the increase in the farm cash income.
Now, if we take y- times this 377 in order
to put this back on a basis of using 1926 as the base year, then we end up with a figure of over 250 for 1950, or a gain over 1926 of over 150.
There is another matter which was brought up yesterday by the hon. member for Macleod when he deprecated the trend which he noticed toward the appointment of defeated candidates to judicial positions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Defeated Liberal candidates.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Liberal candidates, at least by implication. This is the sort of
Judges Act
charge that one would expect to hear as a rumour in the street, but not from a member of the house in a parliamentary debate. When the hon. member made it I must confess I was rather unprepared, and in my reply I said, as the fact was, that only a small percentage of such defeated candidates had been appointed during my own term of office. This matter of the appointment of proper candidates to the judiciary is so extremely important that I feel constrained now to lay before the house the cases-but of course I will not mention the names-of those defeated candidates who have been appointed since November 15, 1948.
To begin with, out of a total number of appointments of 68 there were only two former federal defeated candidates. When I say "former" I mean there were not any who had been defeated a reasonably short time before their appointment to the bench, but there were some who at some stage in their career had sustained defeat, two of them in federal elections and eight in provincial elections.
In a country like Canada where, in order to carry on our democratic form of government, we must have elections from time to time, I would think that it was not really a stain upon a man's character that he should have taken part in one of those elections, or even that he should have been defeated. But if it is a stain upon his character then I suggest that, if he has been defeated in that way, if he carries on as a respectable member of society and does his work well, it is a stain which he ultimately can hope to remove, and that after an interval it would be proper not to disqualify him on that ground alone as a potential candidate for the judiciary. But in the case of every one of these ten men who at some stage of their careers, in some cases eighteen to twenty years before, had been defeated candidates, I want to show one by one that the other qualifications which they possessed admirably fitted them for the position to which they were appointed, in spite of their being defeated candidates. I shall do that because I think it is important, for the confidence that the people of Canada should have in the judiciary of this country, that we put an end to this canard that the main qualifications for judges is that they should be defeated candidates.
The first of this group of ten is a man who was defeated after he had had a long and distinguished career in the House of Commons. I do not think that that sort of career disqualifies him for appointment to the bench because I have a rather good impression of

Judges Act
my fellow members of this House of Commons. I think that as a group they will compare quite favourably with any other similar number of Canadians that you will find anywhere in Canada; and that while we must take great care to see that the lawyer who is appointed to the bench has the necessary legal qualifications for the position, the fact that he has been a member of this house in my view-I may be wrong-rather tends to qualify than disqualify him for judicial appointment.
The second defeated candidate was a man whom I recommended for appointment to the county court bench. In relation to his appointment I think I received a larger number of recommendations from individual members of the bar, from businessmen, from organizations and from representatives of all political parties-except, as it happened, the Social Credit party-than I received for any other candidate. There is no doubt whatever about his eminent qualifications for the position.
The next one was a highly successful practitioner, a comfortably well off, if not wealthy, man, who did not apply for the position, nor was it applied for on his behalf by any of his political friends. We went to him and asked him if he would take the judicial position because we thought of all the men who were available or who could be persuaded to become available he was the most suitable candidate.
The fourth man was the acknowledged leader of the bar in the large city in which he lived. He had in the course of the decade preceding his appointment made earnings at the bar and in the community which made him a moderately wealthy man, and in relation to his earnings at the time that he was appointed he sustained a heavy financial sacrifice by going on the bench.
The next was a professor of civil procedure in the law school in one of our largest Canadian universities, a former batonnier of the bar of his province, a member of the commissioners on uniformity of legislation of the Canadian Bar Association, a member of the commission on the revision of the Criminal Code, and an author of two textbooks on law. Are we going to say that such a man should not be appointed to the bench because at one time in his life he had sustained the alleged disgrace of standing for election and being defeated, although in order to maintain our system of government we must have elections once in a while and we must have good candidates to run in them?
The next was a man who was outstanding in the criminal law, having been a crown attorney of one of the large judicial districts

in a large province, from 1921 to 1936, and had after that followed with a distinguished career as a defence lawyer at the criminal bar.
The next was a man who had been crown attorney for a period of five years, and was a distinguished pioneer resident of a northern part of the province from which he was appointed.
The next appointment was that of a man who, it is true, had been a defeated candidate once upon a time in his younger days, but redeemed himself by being successful in his subsequent elections, and had become attorney general of the province in which he was appointed.
The next one was a resident of one of the smaller provinces who had an excellent practice and was a thoroughly reliable practitioner, and whose defeat at the polls had taken place many years before he was appointed.
As to the last candidate, perhaps I should not include him because he was defeated at the polls in 1932 in Newfoundland, many years before Newfoundland became a province of Canada. But he redeemed that by going on to become what would correspond to the minister of justice in Canada and to * become lieutenant governor of that province; he was lieutenant governor before he was appointed to the bench.
These are all the actual appointments in relation to which this aspersion was cast yesterday by the hon. member for Macleod. As I have known him for many years as a very fair gentleman, I would hope that when he has this explanation he will see fit to withdraw the charge he made.


Mr. Hansell:: May I read exactly what I said? At page 4694 of Hansard, second column, I am recorded in these words:
I am not going to criticize our judicial system, but I believe we have a right to criticize judges and the method of their appointment. I am afraid that we have come to the point where the main qualification for judges seems to be that they must have been defeated Liberal candidates.
Then there was some discussion between the hon. member for Simcoe North and me, following which I said:
I am saying that at the present time our system of appointing judges is in danger of becoming a system of political appointments.
I believe it will be seen, when what I have read is analysed, that I have no reason to withdraw what I said. I am courageous enough to withdraw anything that I think is not according to the truth; I have never lacked the courage to be humble. But I do not think the thoughts expressed there are untruthful.

The minister has replied and I am prepared to accept his reply. However he has said by inference, if not directly, that what I said was that appointments had been made of those who were incompetent to carry on the job. I did not say that. As a matter of fact I said later in my speech that I agreed with the general integrity of our judges.
In his calculations the Minister of Justice has taken me literally, of course. I do not know that I am to be taken too literally in my speeches, because I have a certain style of oratory, if one may call it that, that is all my own. But he did make a good deal of the expression "defeated Liberal candidates". I do not know that I would be such a stickler for that; but I would ask him if he would mind telling us, from the calculations he has made, how many of the remaining number who were not defeated candidates were, at some time or other, successful candidates. For we know for a fact that more than two of them were taken right from this house in recent years, and given appointments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the other place too.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, not only from here, but from the other place too. Our treatment of appointing judges, therefore, is in danger of becoming a system of political appointments. There is no use arguing against that.
I am not a jurist; I am only a common, ordinary chap, but I do believe there should be some revision or some reform in connection with this method of appointments. Perhaps the bar association should have the right of nomination, even though in the final analysis it would not make the appointments. I can conceive of other ways of doing it. Perhaps even the judges themselves should be permitted to make certain nominations. The argument might be made in that respect that if this were done it would result in a sort of family compact. But the nominations do not necessarily have to be accepted. I am convinced, however, that some reform in the system of appointments should be made.
Can the minister answer the question I have asked? Perhaps he has not the answer ready and, if not, I shall not press it. I have made my statement, and I see that in the figures he gave he has taken me literally and given his reply in respect of defeated candidates. But there have been many appointments made from those who were already in office.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe I can dispose of that quickly. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact number, but I shall be able to do so in a short time. However, I believe it would be smaller than the number of defeated candidates.
Judges Act


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, in this bill the government is proposing to increase the salaries and the pensions of judges to the extent of twenty per cent to compensate for increases in the cost of living since 1946. As I understand it, that is the whole idea. With that I wholeheartedly agree. I do not believe any member of the house holds the view sincerely that judges, like other people, do not have to maintain a certain standard of living. We realize that they have to buy the necessities of life, and that the cost of living has increased tremendously since 1946. But it was only last week in this House of Commons that requests were made by members of the opposition to increase the pensions of war veterans so as to compensate them for the increase in the cost of living. It must be borne in mind that we are here dealing also with pensions for judges. The request for increased pensions for war veterans was turned down flatly by the government.
How can the government now in fairness reconcile these two actions? In one instance the government asks for an increase for one group of citizens-an increase which I believe is quite justified-while in the other it has completely refused to recognize the need for an increase in pensions for another group of Canadian citizens.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I would point out that the hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate.


George Harris Hees: Well, now that I have referred to it, would it be possible for the minister, in all justice to the veterans, to give an answer? I should like to know what his answer is.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member is completely out of order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does the hon. member want me to break the rules, too?


George Harris Hees: I should like to have the
minister's opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	,
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Salaries of judges of Court of King's Bench and of Superior Court of Quebec.
Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.
Section stands.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Judges Act
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are one or two comments I should like to make with respect to this clause. The first is that I feel there is something to be said for the argument that some members have put forward to the effect that a percentage increase across the board with respect to salaries hardly seems a fair way to deal with a matter of this kind. The result is that those whose salaries were already considerably higher get an even larger increase than those who were in the lower brackets. When it was decided to make the increase twenty per cent, which would bring the salaries of the county court judges up to $8,000, would it not have been possible to make the increase in the upper brackets a smaller percentage, or indeed none at all? After all, the Minister of Justice nodded his head affirmatively to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough this morning when I heard that member say that the purpose of the increase was to assist judges because of the increased cost of living. That may affect those in the lower brackets all right; certainly it affects them much more than it does those in the upper brackets. Frankly I do not see any excuse on that basis for salaries of $14,400 and $16,000 a year.
The other point to which I wish to draw attention is that in effect it is by amending section 7 and sections 9 to 18 of the Judges Act that we increase the pensions for judges who retire as from the date this amending bill comes into effect. The minister has pointed out we are not amending the pension provisions as such, but when we amend the sections related to salaries it follows as a consequence under section 22 that this bill will provide increases in pensions of the order of twenty per cent. When we get to the clause dealing with section 22 I shall have more to say about that aspect of the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the clause is carried, I should like to say that I am in favour of this legislation because I want to see everybody happy, and a judge who is unhappy does not give good judgments. It is in the interests of the litigants as well as of the bench that the judges should live a comfortable life and enjoy independent means.
I will take this opportunity to make another remark that has been in my mind for a long time. Judges expect to enjoy the respect of everybody, which is natural. They will do so in so far as they stop using unpalatable language with regard to judges of other jurisdiction. I have never heard anybody complain so bitterly about judges as judges themselves. I hope they will be tolerant and will not take the attitude of being depositories

of the revealed truth. There is too much of that, and it is impossible to argue with them.
Very often some of them do not take the trouble to study a case upon its merits. They follow the jurisprudence and render judgments just the same as a butcher makes sausages. Of course there are exceptions, and worthy exceptions, but the publication of compendiums of jurisprudence has a particularly bad effect upon the quality of the judgments rendered by some judges. Very often les juges, or summaries of judgments or dissenting opinions, are not supposed to render absolutely the various shades of thought that the judges have taken so much trouble to try to make understood by those who listen to them or read their judgments. I do not say that to show any disrespect for the bench itself. I understand that the position of judges is very difficult because they act with litigants as the United Nations does with belligerents. They try to appease them as much as they can.
Let me tell you how I used to practice in my own law office years ago. I had a large office with my desk in the middle and there were two rows of chairs on each side. Very often both parties came to my office for a settlement. At first they would abuse each other in the most vociferous language. I did not listen to them. It was too noisy, and I thought of something else. When there was a lull I used to tell them: Gentlemen, now that you have reached an agreement, what will you do? They would say: We have not reached any agreement; we are not going to reach any agreement with that fellow across your desk. Then I would say: "Keep quiet, please", and they would start again. This time it was not so long, and after a few minutes they were ready to come to an amicable settlement. Some judges practice that way, and it is the best way instead of following the practice of Philadelphia lawyers.
I am glad this legislation has been brought before the House of Commons, for the reasons I have given.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure all members of the bar and Canadians generally desire to have on the bench the best possible men who can be recruited for it; and that desire contributed to the action now being taken by the Minister of Justice in this bill providing for a substantial increase in the salaries of judges of the superior and district and county courts. If the administration of justice is to achieve its finest purpose, the best and ablest leaders of the bar must be able to hope the day may come when their integrity, ability and capacity will be recognized by appointment to the bench. Particularly must there be a

strong and independent bench in view of the invasions by bureaucracy of semi-judicial functions which are occurring so often these days, not only in the national field but also in some of the provincial fields.
I was not privileged to be here just before the lunch hour when the Minister of Justice gave his reply to those who had stated, as there are too many in the country who feel, that in recent years the major qualifications of integrity, capacity and ability have not always been regarded as of as much importance as the apparent political fitness of the appointee. That above everything else should be guarded against. I speak as one who has no ambition in this regard, but as one who believes the integrity of the bench and its high regard in the public mind must be maintained. In Britain the Lord Chancellor makes the recommendations. He does not seem to be restricted to the same extent that the Minister of Justice has been-and I am not speaking of the present incumbent any more than of some of his predecessors-by the coincidental fact that supporters of the government so often seem to be the only ones possessed of the necessary ability and integrity to merit appointment to the bench.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who appoints the Lord
Chancellor?


John George Diefenbaker: He is appointed by the government of the day and is the judicial officer who connects the cabinet with the judicial authority, by reason of the prerogatives he possesses. One of the outstanding reasons for the eminence that has been achieved by the British judiciary, irrespective of who might be the lord high chancellor, is that members of opposition political parties are not denied, because of the exigencies of politics, the opportunity to be appointed to the bench. In the United States the chairman of the judiciary committee of the Senate, being a member of the majority party, may not always belong to the same party as the president; and a proportion of the appointments are not restricted to the party in power. The Minister of Justice laughs. This question of maintaining the integrity of the bench is more than a laughing matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a favorite device of my non. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a favorite device of the minister when matters are being discussed seriously to adopt the jocular, irresponsible attitude he has just shown.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Lest there be any mistake about it on this occasion, may I tell my hon. friend that, funny though his remarks may have been, I was not laughing at them.
80709-302J
Judges Act


John George Diefenbaker: So far as our people are concerned there is nothing funny in their desire that the judiciary shall be maintained free of any suggestion of dependence upon political fitness as a qualification for appointment. It may be that only ten appointments to the bench, or whatever the number was, as stated by the minister this morning, were candidates in elections. That does not answer the question at all. I want to find out from the minister the basis upon which the appointments are made. Is there any submission to the officers or benchers of the law societies of the various provinces? Is there any submission to the Canadian Bar Association?-because, after all, the membership of that association knows no bounds of political considerations. I feel that if we are to elevate the bench to a position where never again shall there be suggestions such as have been made in this house-


Mr. Crestohl:: I rise to a point of order. I do not think we are now debating the method of appointing judges. We are now discussing section 3, which deals with their salaries.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The point of order is well taken. We are discussing section 3, which has to do with salaries.


Mr. Lesage:: How many Liberals were appointed by the Bennett government?


John George Diefenbaker: I always bow to your
rulings, Mr. Chairman, but I submit that one of the reasons given for increasing the salaries is that it is necessary in order to obtain the best men for the position. My remarks were directed to that purpose. If Your Honour says they are out of order I shall immediately desist, but I was endeavouring to ascertain the basis of appointment. After all, other things being equal, there should be no objection to the law societies of the various provinces submitting the names of a group of men who are fit for appointment, whatever their politics. Then the Minister of Justice and those associated with him could give consideration to the appointment of a man from that list of men who the law society believes are qualified. This would in no way interfere with the prerogative rights of the Minister of Justice. He would have reinforcement in the appointments made by the support of the law societies in the various provinces.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Suppose the law society of Ontario recommends all its members to the minister, what shall he do?

Judges Act


John George Diefenbaker: I have too high a regard for the law society of Ontario, or any other law society, to think of their doing that. The law society comprises the best men who are the leaders in the bar in their respective provinces. Law societies know no limitation of politics or other considerations. There are in this house men who have been benchers. I see the hon. member for Yorkton, who has been the president of the law society of Saskatchewan and a distinguished member of the bar in that province. No one would suggest that such a man would restrict his recommendations to members of his own party.
I suggest this would go a long way towards elevating our judiciary to an unchallengeable position of independence and above any reproach. The members of the bar want to keep the judiciary above reproach. I am making a serious suggestion, and it is one which is supported by lawyers with whom I have talked in every province. Something along these lines would go a long way towards contributing something additional to the public esteem in which our judiciary is held.
I remember the Minister of Justice speaking in fulsome terms two years ago of the Supreme Court of Canada, when the supreme court was made the final court. At the inception of my remarks this afternoon I mentioned that we need a court that is strong and independent, particularly in view of the development of administrative law, boards and commissions. We had a case in Manitoba that came before the court of appeal of that province by way of appeal from a trial judge. I refer to the case of Nolan v. Hallet and Carey. Two years ago the minister said that we should make the Supreme Court of Canada the final arbiter, so that there would be no more appeals to the privy council.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no question of the supreme court in this bill. The hon. member should not refer to the supreme court. He only has the right to mention the courts of inferior jurisdiction.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I must ask the hon. member to have regard for the section of the bill, and make his remarks relevant to it.


John George Diefenbaker: I was giving that as an
example of the kind of thing that should not take place. But apparently, Mr. Chairman, my examples are not well taken, because the first chance the minister got he appealed that case to the privy council. All of us want to see, as the member for Temiscouata saidfMr. Pouliot.]


Jean-François Pouliot: Do not pronounce my name
in vain.


John George Diefenbaker: I was deeply moved by
the eloquence of the hon. member a few minutes ago, when he said we must have a judiciary that is comfortably independent. I did not pronounce his name in vain; I just quoted the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: Quote me and you will not
be called to order.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member had
waited until I was able to pay him that tribute, I know he would not have raised the point of order.
This legislation will provide the opportunity for service to the most outstanding lawyers in the country. Let it operate in that direction, to the end that the most eminent men-when I say "the most eminent" I mean these characteristics, and I put them in this order, integrity, the capacity and the judicial wisdom-'are elevated to the bench.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the learning.


John George Diefenbaker: Judicial wisdom and
learning are synonymous. Such men will be available to the public service in this branch of government which is so important at all times, but most important when one sees the degree of administrative interference in the legislative and executive functions of government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before the clause is carried,
I should like to say a few words in reply to what my hon. friend has said. I am rather embarrassed that I should be put in the position of instructing so eminent a lawyer in the ABC's of the law on this point. I would refer him to section 96 of the British North America Act which says:
The governor general shall appoint the judges of the superior, district, and county courts in each province, except those of the courts of probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Now, that disposes of the question as to whether the law societies should make those appointments.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise to a point of
order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know my hon. friend will say we should just receive recommendations.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I said.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But I suggest that, in the face of this clear requirement of the law, and in the face of the principle that in a democratic country when the people go to the polls to elect their representatives in parliament they would prefer to have their business carried

on by those elected representatives rather than on a recommending basis by some other non-elected body the course which we follow is the correct one.
Be that as it may, I think that, so far at least as Liberal governments of this country are concerned, not so great a complaint can be made with regard to the manner of judicial appointments as my hon. friend seems to think. It may be that he is imputing to us the standards of his party when it was in power. Let me remind him that within the last few years this government has appointed Conservatives, whose names I shall not drag into this debate-


Jean Lesage: Two in Quebec, at least.


Mr.   Ga@: I had not taken those into
account. I shall have to add those to the list. There were two in Quebec, another in Nova Scotia, that is three; two in Ontario; the distinguished chief justice of one of the courts of one of the provinces, and I shall not even identify the province; another recent appointment made in my own time to the county court of my own province; two appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada; two appointments to the appeal court of Manitoba, one to the appeal court of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: The appeal court
appointments were elevations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They were promotions; that
is right. But they were appointments nevertheless. And there was the continuance of two Conservative members in the supreme court of Newfoundland. If that same standard were maintained by all Canadian governments all through the picture, my hon. friend would not be able to get up and make the complaint that he has just finished making this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are
288 superior court judges in Canada. My hon. friend has fairly well proven my case when in detailing the appointments made he had to include four or five appointments that were promotions.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Mr. Bennett.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly surprised at my hon. friend who is complaining that the Minister of Justice was smiling when he was speaking. I could ask him whether he prefers a smiling judge or a frowning judge.
As to the matter of appointments, that is something which is none of my business; it is that of the government. But I am quite surprised that the Minister of Justice has
Judges Act
enumerated such a large number of Tories who have been appointed to the bench. It is not a matter of political patronage. I believe in liberalism and I believe in a liberal jurisprudence in this land. In the United States there were two Jews who were on the bench of the supreme court; their1 names were Brandeis and Frankfurter. They were known for their ideas of tolerance, and their judgments are quoted throughout the land as examples of good jurisprudence. There were other judges, such as Chief Justice Hughes and Chief Justice Taft who were appointed by the party in power and who, as soon as they were appointed to the bench, forgot politics. What do we expect of judges? We expect that they cease to be partisan on the day they are sworn in as judges.
I do not wish to pursue the matter further, Mr. Chairman, but as a lawyer and as a citizen of this country I hope that no judges will be appointed to the bench for the purpose of appeasing the opposition. That would be a tremendous mistake. One of the judges who were appointed by the former government sits on the bench now because a cabinet minister was afraid to have him as his opponent in his own county. That is not a reason for the appointment of a Conservative to the bench. I could name that judge, but I will not do so; I will be discreet.


An hon. Member:: Why not name him?


Jean-François Pouliot: Everybody knows him. There should be no bargaining with regard to appointments to the bench. My hon. friend mentioned the leaders of the legal profession. Who are considered to be the leaders of the legal profession? It is not the lawyers who study the law, who meet their clients in the office or who go to the courts. It is the big corporation lawyers who make good and bad weather in the councils of the bar. My hon. friend knows that, and he knows it especially with regard to the Canadian Bar Association. That is why I have never joined that association.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Jean-François Pouliot: I know. My hon. friend knows also. There is no use his denying it, because he would be the laughing stock of the legal profession if he were to do so. My hon. friend knows that those who are considered to be the leaders of the bar in Montreal, in Toronto, in Winnipeg and in other places are directors of big companies who pay little attention to their profession, the legal work being done by juniors in their offices, and who sit on company boards.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I think we are getting far away from the clause under consideration.

Judges Act


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman; but I was just following in the footsteps of my hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: You are out of order now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now that you have spoken, Mr. Chairman, I will stop doing so. I have expressed my feeling about the matter. I hope that, in the future, the Minister of Justice will not boast about the appointment of Tories to the bench.


Mr. Sinnott:: Mr. Chairman, I have tried half a dozen times to get my ten cents' worth in here.


An hon. Member:: Inflation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is inflation everywhere.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have been amused at the debate that has been going on between those who are competing for positions of judges. The hon. member for Temiscouata said that he wants to see everybody happy. I think that all of us want to see everybody happy.


Mr. Murphy:: Then sit down.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Possibly that remark came from a Tory who thinks maybe he may get an appointment to the bench, and that if I sit down he may have an opportunity. Be that as it may, the hon. member for Temiscouata said that he would like to see everybody happy. So would we all. But having regard to what is in this bill, I think we should not rush it through too fast. While the hon. member for Temiscouata would like to see everybody happy, I believe that thousands of people across this land are going to be disappointed.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Last Monday, for instance!


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have a little clipping here which might do a little good. This clipping is headed "Garson Moves to Hike Salary For Judges". I should not wonder that that was a big reason why those four by-elections were lost.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Your reasoning is always good.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I propose to say that I am as close to the average individual in this country as is anybody on the other side of the house.
The hon. member for Lake Centre said that the members of the bar would all be happy about this bill. I have no bone to pick with him in that connection, because there are a certain number of lawyers who would be appointed to the bar from time to time, <nd the more they blow up this legislation, the better their chances are going to be.
[The Chairman.]
There are, however, many farmers, miners, bricklayers, carpenters and other people across this country who are not going to be too happy, because they will not have security in this bill.
I quite agree with the members of the legal profession who have said that we must have good judges. There is no doubt about that. We must have good judges and we must have the best men. But, Mr. Chairman, money will not buy good men. You must have men with character, men who seek to serve their country and who will not let the almighty dollar be their master. That is what I see in this bill; the almighty dollar is their master.


Mr. Rinfrei:: That is not true, and you know it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is true. When the Postmaster General tells me that a judge cannot live on $12,000 a year, then I say there is room for some examination some place.
I look at this matter from another point of view, Mr. Chairman. I look at it from the point of view that this is one of the few democratic countries left. Today we are fighting communism. We do not want to see-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Mr. McCann:: This clause has to do with salaries.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We do not want to see-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Why?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The clause refers to salaries.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: Not
to Stalin.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am talking about Stalin. We do not want to see class- distinction, class legislation, because when you give some people a much higher salary than others and guarantee it until the age of seventy-that is very good picking, particularly when the public has to pay for it. I do not care how much salary a man gets in private life; that is his own business; but when a man is being paid out of the public treasury, then we as citizens of this country and as members of parliament should have something to say about it.
I said that class legislation is something that we have to get away from. Class legislation is something that creates communism. I maintain that I am just as close to the average individual as anybody in this land.

The only way in which we can fight communism is to be as democratic as we can, so that those in the lower income brackets will have no objection to the legislation passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Substitution of "The governor in council may".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 4 and also one or two other clauses have the effect of deleting the words "His Majesty may, by letters patent under the great seal of Canada" do such and such, and putting in their place "The governor in council may" do those things. In the explanatory note on the opposite side of the page we are told that the formality of letters patent is unnecessary and costly, and that is the reason for simplifying the procedure. Incidentally the explanatory note also says: "Pensions and annuities under the Civil Service Superannuation Act and Defence Services Pension Act are granted by order in council." I agree with the desire to simplify the procedure, but I doubt whether a comparison should have been made with these other two pension acts, because in the case of the other two there are certain very precise differences; for example, contributions in these cases are required from the person who is to draw the pension, but such is not the case under the Judges Act.
Will the minister explain why it is that the phrase "His Majesty may, by letters patent under the great seal of Canada" is not being changed in the case of some of the sections? I note that pensions under some of these sections are still to be granted by His Majesty through the form of letters patent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To which section does my hon. friend refer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, section 23 of the act has not been changed by anything in the amending bill now before us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will read section 4 of the bill he will see that subsection 1 reads:
Subsection 1 of section twenty-two, section twenty-three . . .


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; the minister has got me there. I missed that reference to section 23.


Mr. Croll:: That is surprising.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the aim is to make the change all the way through. No more letters patent will be required for the granting of pensions to judges.
May I point out that the effect of section 22 when amended, as the result of the changes in salaries that have already been approved by this bill, will be to make certain
Judges Act
increases in the pensions of those judges when they are retired, the amounts of which I think should be a matter of record. The main salary amounts provided for in the legislation before us at the present time are $8,000, $14,400 and $16,000. In the case of the first group, namely, county court judges, those who retire on the present salary of $6,666 retire on a pension of $4,444. That pension is being raised by this legislation to $5,333, or an increase of $889 a year. That does not apply to any county court judge now in retirement, but that increase is being provided for any county court judge who retires after this bill goes through.
In the case of judges of the superior and supreme courts of the provinces, the retirement allowance at the present time is $8,000 a year. By virtue of this bill this allowance will toe increased to $9,600 a year, or an increase of $1,600 a year. Similarly, the position of the -chief justices of the various provinces has been improved from a pension of $8,888 a year at the present time to a pension of $10,666 a year, or an increase of $1,778 a year.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, although I can see an argument for increasing some of the salaries, for example the salaries of the county court judges and those in the lower brackets, I do not see the justification for increasing pensions that are already $4,444 a year, $8,000 a year or $8,888 a year. It seems to me that these pensions were more than ample for comfortable retirement befitting the dignity and the service that these men have rendered to their country. Indeed I feel that the minister should have worded the amendment to section 22 in such a way as to prevent these substantial increases in pension allowances that are already quite substantial. I point out that they are -completely non-contributory. I point out that there is no means test attached to them in any way. I would also point out that the pension is based upon the salary annexed to the position at the time that the judge retires. Under most retirement plans the pension is based on the average of the last certain number of years of service. In this case the judge who waits until this bill becomes law, whereupon there will be annexed to his position an increased salary, apparently could retire almost the next day, certainly very shortly thereafter, and then get a pension related not to the salary that he had been drawing during his years on the bench, but related to the salary that was his at the time when he retired. It does seem to me that in the light of the way we deal with some other pension matters, the government is being altogether too generous with respect to these pensions.

Judges Act
I did not take much part in the debate on these salaries; I did express my view, particularly, to the effect that any increase should be on a dollar basis rather than on a percentage basis, so as to assist those in the lower brackets. But no matter what is done with regard to the salaries of judges, I do object to these substantial increases in the amount of their pensions. Please note that the lowest increase that we are providing is in itself approximately the same as the total amount of the old age pension for a married couple which we provided by legislation that we passed last week.
In connection with this matter of pensions and the retirement of judges, may I point out that section 22, which we are now amending, does seem to me to make it possible-and I should like the minister to explain if I am wrong-for a judge to retire after fifteen years and to go on pension. That seems a very short period in which to gain such a large pension.
With respect to another phase of the matter I understand that under section 99 of the British North America Act we do not now have authority to provide for the compulsory retirement of judges of the provincial superior and supreme courts.
Section 99 says:
The judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the governor general on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
The government has found a way to get around that in the case of judges it felt should be retired. That is covered in section 29 of the Judges Act, where provision is made, not that a judge be dismissed, but that his salary cease-which is a pretty good way of suggesting to a judge that he retire, particularly when he is told that his salary will stop, but that if he does retire he will go on pension. So in this way an indirect way was found of getting around section 99 of the British North America Act.
I should like to have a comment from the minister as to whether or not my statement is correct, that a judge can retire after fifteen years service, regardless of his age, and thereupon draw the pension set out, namely two-thirds of his salary.
The other matter upon which I would ask the minister to comment is as to whether any further consideration has been given by the government to finding a way to arrange for retirement of superior court judges at a reasonable age. As the minister knows, this matter was the subject of a bill which went through the house, I believe it was in the days of the Bennett regime, but which failed to pass in the other place. That bill was

patterned after section 29 of the Judges Act. It provided that judges of the superior courts at a certain age should have their salaries reduced to what would be the amount they would receive on pension.
Another point I would stress is that we now have the right to amend the British North America Act here in this parliament, with respect to any matter that is purely federal. This is a matter that is purely federal. Does it not seem desirable to find some way in which to deal with this problem?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall reply to the hon. member's questions in the order in which he asked them. He asked if it was not right to ask that a supreme court judge may retire after fifteen years. In the way in which he stated it, it is not right, because while section 22 to which he referred states that-
His Majesty may, by letters patent under the great seal of Canada, grant to a judge of a superior court who has continued in office as such for at least fifteen years-
-an annuity, it must be read in conjunction with section 28 of the act, which states:
No annuity shall be granted under subsection 1 of section 22 or under section 24 of this act unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such judge should resign his office.
I might add that since section 28 was inserted in the act not a single case, my officials tell me, has arisen under which a judge has been retired by invoking this fifteen-year provision, except in cases where health made it necessary or where health was a euphemism for habits of insobriety, or something like that, which was the real reason for his retirement. In other words it does not appear that the instance the hon. member has mentioned is covered by it.
Then, with regard to the other point he raised: he is right in saying that the section of the British North America Act he quoted does make a constitutional bar to the retirement of supreme court judges at the age of seventy-five. My understanding is that these devices such as reducing the salary to one dollar-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Reducing it to the amount of the pension.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: [DOT]

or reducing it at all, are regarded as unconstitutional attempts to accomplish by indirect methods that which is prohibited by the explicit provisions of the British North America Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then how does the minister account for section 29 of the Judges Act? Does it not contravene section 99 of the British North America Act in the same way,

namely by doing something indirectly which the minister argues could not be done directly?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have not acted under section 29 in any case yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought there was one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that does not answer the question. May I say this further word: the fact of the matter is that we do have a retirement age for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and I believe for the Exchequer Court of Canada. There are retirement ages also for judges of the county court and for magistrates who come under provincial jurisdiction. There is, in between, this group of judges of the supreme courts of the provinces, and of the superior courts, where that term is used, who are not subject to any compulsory retirement. It does not seem sensible to let it rest in that way. Surely it would be a simple matter now for the government to introduce an amendment to the British North America Act to make that provision.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is not quite as simple as the hon. member has suggested, because there is a clear provision in section 99 that the judges of the superior court shall hold office during good behaviour. As my hon. friend has suggested, it would require a constitutional amendment to dispose of the matter. Having regard to the fact that the administration of justice is, according to the British North America Act, assigned exclusively to the provinces, I do not think that even by the most strained interpretation of the constitution we could say that this is a matter wholly within federal jurisdiction. Therefore the course of action which he proposes would necessitate concurrence of the provinces.
I might tell my hon. friend that at the dominion-provincial conferences we have been holding in the last couple of years we have raised with the provinces this matter as to whether we could not reach an agreement under which it would be possible to retire superior court judges at seventy-five, in the same manner as we retire county court judges and judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. But until that agreement with the provinces on this point is reached, and a constitutional amendment obtained pursuant to the agreement, I am afraid the procedure my hon. friend advocates would not be possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Judges Act
On section 5-Annuity to judges of county court or circuit court of district of Montreal.
George Stanley White: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has already indicated, a justice of the supreme court can retire after fifteen years, and a judge of the county court either after twenty-five years or when he reaches the age of seventy-five. Why is there this difference as to the age at which a supreme court judge may retire, or the fact that he may retire after fifteen years, while in the case of the county court judge it is twenty-five years? Does the minister not think, from experience, that the age limit of seventy-five years is too old, in many cases?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


George Stanley White: The
minister himself knows there have been many cases where judges in county courts have felt they had to remain until they reached the age of seventy-five years, so that they would get their full retirement allowance. Would it not be better, in the administration of justice as a whole, if the retirement age for judges of the county courts were to be reduced to at least seventy years, and some further consideration given to the time of fifteen years for judges of the supreme court as against twenty-five for those in the county courts?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to the first question asked by the hon. member would be much the same as I gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; that is, that this period of fifteen years, after which a superior court judge may be retired, can be invoked only in compliance with the provision of section 28 of the Judges Act, which requires that the governor in council should be of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the judge be retired.


George Stanley White: Just
what does public interest mean?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Public interest might mean
that if the judge in question had been guilty of some misconduct such as I cited a few moments ago, continued insobriety, that he himself could be convinced was improper, then this would be a proper case to get him off the bench and to do so in the public interest. However, as I informed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a moment ago, there has not been a single case since section 28 was put in the act in which it has ever been invoked for other than health reasons. Therefore what appears- and I will concede this-upon the surface to be, as my hon. friend regards it, discrimination against county court judges compared with supreme court judges, in practice has not worked out that way.

Judges Act


George Stanley White: Does
the minister not feel that seventy-five is too old? He must know of many cases while he was practising. I can recall a county court judge we had in our district who told me that he was subject to diabetes, and that it was impossible for him to remain seated on the bench for so many hours a day. Yet that man felt he would have to remain. We all have these things as we get along in years. I think the minister would agree that seventy-five is too old for retirement. In the case of the banks sixty is the age for retirement today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The federal government is
in an unavoidable position of some embarrassment in this matter. It has the function of appointing a judge to the bench. His conduct while exercising his judicial powers on the bench comes almost entirely under the jurisdiction of the provincial attorney general who has exclusive authority over the administration of justice. I suggest to my hon. friend that the average judge in good health is normally in full possession of his mental powers until he is 75. With reference to the case that the hon. member mentioned of the judge who was a diabetic, there is provision in the act for the retirement of any judge who is suffering from a physical infirmity. In a matter of that kind I think that it is the responsibility of the provincial attorney general, carrying out his responsibility for the administration of justice, to go to those judges who, through physical infirmity, are really unfit to discharge the duties of their office, and endeavour to get them to retire upon the not insubstantial retirement allowance which is put in the act for the purpose of securing only good judges upon the bench. These retiring allowances are made so that the incumbent will not be in any position of financial discomfort if he does retire, because his health disables him from properly performing his judicial duties.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Annuity to widows of judges who died before August 15, 1944.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to comment first of all on subsection 4. I am very glad to see this subsection in the bill. Having advocated such an amendment to the act since I came into the house in 1945,' and having pressed the minister and his predecessors on the subject both in the house and in correspondence, I wish to express my gratification that this amendment is now being made. I consider that a great injustice was done in 1944 that, when the right of election was extended to

the judges to divide their annuities with their widows if their wives survived them, the same privilege was not extended to judges who happened to have retired prior to August 15, 1944. That shortcoming is now being corrected by this subsection, and I for one wish to express my gratification on finding it in the bill.
There is one other matter on which I should like to make brief comment with reference to the option now given to judges either to retain their annuity for themselves exclusively or to make the other choice of dividing it with their widows should their wives survive them. The exercise of the option under present circumstances is irrevocable. But in a case where a judge has made his election in favour of dividing his annuity with his widow, if he happens to survive his wife he receives only two-thirds of the annuity. By reason of the fact that he guessed wrong as to whether his wife might or might not survive him, he is deprived thereby of one-third of the pension he would otherwise receive. I do not think that is fair. If a judge is married at the time he exercises his option, exercises it in favour of his wife, and then his wife predeceases him, it seems to me only fair that he should be entitled to the full pension, and that he should not be penalized to the extent of one-third of his annuity because his wife has predeceased him.
It strikes me that the crown is obliging the judge under those circumstances to wager on his wife surviving him. It is not fair, and in the treatment of our judges I do not think we need to resort to a basis like that. I urge on the minister that, where a married judge has exercised his option in favour of his wife, and then his wife predeceases him, he should be entitled to his full annuity without deduction because of the fact that he guessed wrong as to whether or not his wife would survive him.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend. The judge has not guessed wrong at all. He is getting full actuarial value for the election which he made. The situation is this. The judge has a certain pension. In the interests of protecting his wife he has been given the privilege of dividing it into three parts and making one of those parts payable to his wife for her life.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If she survives him.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If she survives him, and the wives survive the husbands in more cases than vice versa. The intention of the government was to enable the judge to dispose of his pension in a way in which the judge and

his wife would be protected during the lifetime of both of them, and the survivor would be protected for his or her lifetime. We wanted to do that at no cost, if possible, to the taxpayer because the taxpayer is entitled to some consideration in this matter. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough says that these very deserving county court judges should have a much larger increase than they are getting. Perhaps there may be something to his argument, but some consideration also has to be paid to the people who are paying the bill.
When the judge elects to divide his pension in that way he is in effect buying an annuity for his wife equal to one-third of his own pension and payable for her life, whether she survives him or not. He is getting actuarial value for that. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot get that protection, which any insurance man will tell my hon. friend can only be attained by paying a premium of so much money value, and at the same time say that after the risk has not turned out in the way he anticipated when he paid his premium he would like to get his money back. On that basis, if I insure my house for three years and it does not burn down in that period I could go back to the insurance company and say that since it certainly had not lost anything in carrying the fire risk on my house it should give me back my premium. By a more intelligent arrangement of the judge's pension for the benefit of himself and his wife we planned to guard against widows of judges being left destitute and we planned to do this at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. The amount of money we pay the widows of judges under this arrangement is more than we save through the judge getting only two-thirds of his pension where his wife predeceases him. It is true that the difference is not a large sum of money, but it is something. So I do not think if is at all fair to say the judge gets no value for his money, and the proof of that is in the fact that the great majority of judges have very wisely, I think, seen fit to make this election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course most of them would make the election. I think married judges should be encouraged to do so, because the whole purpose of the 1944 amendment to the act was to make provision for the widows of judges. There had been many cases of hardship prior to that time.
The minister spoke of insurance. Certainly this annuity scheme was never set up on any insurance basis. It was set up on the basis of making provision for those not provided for hitherto.
80709-303$
Judges Act
But there are judges still on the bench who were married at the time they made their election but whose wives have died since, and the election is irrevocable. I wish to express the personal opinion that in a case of that kind it is not fair to take advantage of the irrevocability of the election that has been made. I do not think that is the way to treat those who are bearing heavy judicial responsibilities.


Mr. MacNaughi:: I want to pursue the point raised by the hon. member for Eglin-ton. His argument stopped at the point where the wife predeceased the judge. I would like to know what happens in the event that the judge remarries.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am told that when the judge elects to divide his pension in the manner I have indicated, upon his death that pension becomes payable to his spouse at that time, though she may not be the same spouse he had at the time he made the election.


George Stanley White: Subsection 1 provides for an annuity to the widow of a judge who died before 1944. I will tell the minister the particulars of the case I have in mind, and he can tell me whether this will apply. The judge in question died some eighteen years ago, and his wife never received any allowance. She is now in circumstances which would qualify her to receive assistance under the regulations. Is there any time limit, or would that widow at this late date be entitled to receive two-ninths of the amount her husband was receiving at the time of his death?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From what point of time?


George Stanley White: From now on.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely, providing she can
show that she is in necessitous circumstances and has not remarried. It is on the basis of need.


George Stanley White: There is no time limit in reference to how many years ago the judge died?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


John George Diefenbaker: How many cases come within the purview of section 26A? If the minister answered that previously I did not hear it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; the question was not asked. I said before we thought there would be a shade more than one hundred widows who, depending upon their circumstances, might come under this clause. We have no idea as to which of those can qualify. It will be

Judges Act
only those in necessitous circumstances, because this is a provision to take care of need.


John George Diefenbaker: Is any grant being made today to the widows of any judges who did not qualify under the 1944 amendment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. One of the reasons for the 1944 amendment was that, in spite of all we have heard in this debate about judges being very well to do, a number of widows of judges were left in very necessitous circumstances. This provision for dividing the pension in the way I have been describing was hit upon as a method by which the widows of judges could be taken care of at very little cost to the taxpayers. But those who became widows before their husbands made this election receive no part of their pensions after they die. The judge's pension expires with his death, unless he has previously elected to divide it with his wife.


John George Diefenbaker: In reply to the hon. member for Prince the minister said that in the case of a judge who made an election, whose wife died and who remarried, the annuity then would be payable to her. I am interested in that because the other day a judge got in touch with me and told me such was not the case. Perhaps I am not expressing exactly what he said. It may have been that he made the election that no part should go to his wife; that he then remarried after her death and now wishes to make an election in respect of the second wife. It was the latter case he brought to my attention, and of course in those circumstances the decision is irrevocable for the reasons given by the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the bill be read the third time.
Some hon.. Members: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 393, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1951, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih
Centre):	Are these amendments of any
consequence?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The house will recall that in this bill, which w'e passed last week, there was a provision authorizing $97 million of capital expenditures which were in the budget that had been approved by the standing committee on railways owned by the government. The railway officials feel that while they want their equipment this year, because of the lag in the delivery of orders some of it may not be delivered until after the end of the fiscal year. The present amendments would give them authority to pay for that equipment after the end of the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will he provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act 1950 as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
Mr. Pearkes:: When the committee rose to report progress last night, we were considering the detail dealing with the acquisition

and construction of buildings. I was questioning the amount in this item, namely, $3,350,000. I understood that $350,000 would be spent on civil defence and the balance, namely, $3 million was to be spent on acquiring land, preparing plans and starting on the construction of a new defence headquarters here in the city of Ottawa. I was wondering whether there was any real necessity for such construction to start this year, in view of the fact that the present headquarters now occupied by national defence was built towards the end of the last war. From all outward appearances, it seems to be in first-class condition.
We have been told that there is a considerable shortage of steel across the country, and ther? is not a plentiful supply of other building materials. There is a great demand for private homes as well as other government buildings. In fact, buildings are required in this department, such as barracks, homes for the soldiers, drillhalls, armouries, airfields and so forth. I wondered whether we were really justified in spending this large sum of money for this particular purpose. I was not entirely satisfied with the answer which was given by the minister, and I should like to know if he has anything to say in amplification of the brief remarks he made last night? When was the present building now occupied by the headquarters of the three services constructed, and what was the cost of it?


Mr. Claxton:: I think it is agreed by all hon. members that some day the Department of National Defence should move away from Cartier square. That being so, the question arises as to whether it is not wise on our part to acquire the land on which to build the future national defence headquarters, and to begin work on the plans. That is all that is contemplated this year, and that has not yet been decided upon. I would point out that it is desirable that we should acquire the site, not only for the purpose of having the site but for the purpose of being able to plan now other arrangements related to it, such as transportation and communication facilities as well as other accommodations.
Then there is a question of the adequacy of the present accommodation compared to what we had during the war. On Cartier square we have at present three buildings now known as A, B and C. They provide a floor space of 536,000 square feet. At the peak of the war we were using in Ottawa an additional 1,903,646 square feet, or a total of 2,439,646 square feet. At the present time we have the buildings A, B and C on Cartier square providing 536,000 square feet,
Supply-National Defence and in addition we have in the district of Ottawa approximately another 320,000 square feet. At the present time, therefore, we have approximately 850,000 square feet, or about one-third of what we had at the peak of the war.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister say what it cost to erect the buildings now occupied?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Building A, which is the old naval service headquarters, cost $830,350.38; building C, which is the old army annex, cost $1,007,125; and building B, which is the old R.C.A.F. building on Lisgar street, cost $527,052.34. This totals $2,364,527.72.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are there any plans for these buildings A, B and C when you dispose of them?


Brooke Claxton: No; under the plans for the federal district for Ottawa, it is intended that they would be removed. My recollection is that one or two large public buildings would be located there. '


George Randolph Pearkes: To all intents and purposes we are going to say goodbye to this $2 million?


Brooke Claxton: Undoubtedly there would be some salvage through the crown assets disposal corporation. I cannot give an estimate of what we would get.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister would not get very much for that. When was this building completed? Was it in 1944?


Brooke Claxton: These buildings were completed at three different periods, but I think they were all completed by 1943.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This item of $3 million is purely for the acquisition of land?


Brooke Claxton: And the preparation of plans.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Could the minister say how much land is envisaged?


Brooke Claxton: We have not settled that, but it would be a very considerable area. It would, of course, depend on the location. If it were some distance from the centre of Ottawa it would be necessary to provide services and other accommodations.


George Randolph Pearkes: Have any options been paid for any land yet?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Harris Hees: The minister has said it is desirable to move the present headquarters from its location. Is that because of the necessity of fitting in with the national plan for Ottawa or what is the reason?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: The building itself is a temporary wartime building and will not last forever. It has to be replaced at some future date. It is a good wartime building and it is in good condition, provided it is well maintained; and the maintenance costs are quite high. I think there was a fairly clear understanding that when Cartier square was used for that purpose it would be released at some date; and the federal district plan provides for the location of defence headquarters somewhere else.


George Harris Hees: Have we the minister's assurance that no construction will be started on this new building until such a future time as materials which are needed for housing and other urgently needed buildings are again in free supply?


Brooke Claxton: I can give the assurance that the Minister of Defence Production will watch that situation carefully, and that I certainly do not believe that the building will be started this year except for the acquisition of land, the commencement of plans, and conceivably the planning and preliminary work, also some services that it might be convenient to do in conjunction with some other operations might begin this year; but no construction.


George Harris Hees: Then 'I take it that no construction will be started until building materials are again in free supply. Is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: That will have to be con->
sidered by the Minister of Defence Production having regard to all the considerations and the various priorities involved. But I cannot conceive of that building being started this year.


George Randolph Pearkes: Had the estimates been prepared in a different way, Mr. Chairman, and if this subitem were an item by itself, one would be in a position to move a reduction in this estimate by the amount which is now proposed to be spent on these headquarters, if one felt that it was an unnecessary expenditure. I am not convinced yet as to the necessity for this building and for this expenditure of money. I recall the fact that earlier this year, when speaking on his estimates-and this is to be found at page 2805 of Hansard-the minister assured this committee that he was going to observe the utmost in the way of economy in the expenditure of this large sum of money which he has at his disposal. As reported at the same page he went on to say:
... we will see to it that the best possible use is made of this money.
Owing to the way in which these estimates are presented, it would not be possible to

move a reduction at this stage without affecting the whole item which embraces many other details. As we go on with the examination of these estimates, it may be that we shall find other items with the necessity for which we are not impressed. While I say this item may therefore be carried, I do so with the reservation that when we consider the total we may have the right to move a reduction of the amount shown here, one which appears at the moment to be an extravagant and unnecessary expenditure at the present time. I do not want to move now that there be a reduction of $3 million because we may find other items under the heading of construction and so forth, which would mean that a much larger sum would be involved. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if you will accept the "carried" as it will be given now as meaning that we have ceased debating on this subitem, well and good; but I reserve the right to move a reduction, with particular reference to this construction, when we come to the end of the item.


Mr. Balcer:: As the hon. member who has just spoken has stated, this item seems to be of doubtful necessity. On May 10, in reply to a request that I had made previously that a defence college for French-speaking Canadians be established in the province of Quebec, the Minister of National Defence said at the time that it was too expensive a project. I do not know exactly how much such a defence college would cost, but I think it is something that is of the utmost importance. I think the minister should attach to this matter just as much importance as he does to the building of a new headquarters.
While I am on my feet I should like to point out that when I drew attention to the extremely low percentage of senior officers using the French language in our armed forces-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It seems to me
those remarks are out of order on this item.


Léon Balcer: As I said a little earlier, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing new buildings. I should like to stress the point that at the present time we need a defence college in Quebec. I think it would be of interest to the committee if we discussed it on this particular item where we are voting $3 million.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am sorry, but I must point out that it was agreed by the committee that the general discussion of the first item must close and that we were examining only the subitems one by one. That was agreed unanimously by the committee.


Léon Balcer: All right, Mr. Chairman.


George Harris Hees: With regard to this question of the need for this new building, although the defence headquarters is termed a temporary building, I have inspected it and have looked it over quite carefully from the outside, and to me it looks like a fairly first-class building, whether it is classed as temporary or not. It seems to me that it would be in good condition for another ten years anyway. The facilities we have at the present time handled forces amounting to nearly one million men and women during the last war. It therefore seems to me that it must have the physical capacity to handle our needs for the present and for the foreseeable future. Desirable though it might be to have a nice new building started and completed soon, again the money that pays for that building must come out of the taxpayers' pockets. If a building of this kind requires an outlay of $3 million just for land and plans, I would say that by the time it is completed it will cost many millions of dollars that again must come out of the taxpayers' pockets.
I see no justification at all for starting on a project of this kind at this time when taxes are high, when the cost of living is high and when people are being taxed heavily. I see no justification for starting on a project such as this which will continue on and be built- there is no doubt about that-once it is started. The location of the building is excellent at the present time, being close to other government buildings, where members of the staff have to be in touch with government members and so on. I can see no justification for this expenditure at all. I would request the minister to explain why a building that was completed at the end of the last war, that seems to be in first-class shape, that handled personnel of almost one million men and women in the armed forces in the last war, would not be adequate for a number of years, and why it is necessary to start on a new building at the present time.


Brooke Claxton: Apparently the hon. gentleman did not hear what I said in reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo. It is not intended at this time to build a new building. It is intended, if we decide to do so and find a suitable location, to acquire a site and prepare plans; that would surely be the only sensible and wise thing to do. It is not just for the purpose of acquiring land in order to prevent somebody else from getting it. It is in order that we may plan services, communications and the location of other accommodation with respect to that site. In addition, at the present time, we are occupying, in addition to the national defence building, 320,000 square feet.
Supply-National Defence It is not a difficult thing to operate in that way, but it is much more efficient, when we can come to it and when there are materials available, to operate in one building.
As regards the adequacy of this building, or our present accommodation, as compared with the war, at the present time we are using 850,000 square feet. During the war we were using about 2,439,646 square feet, or approximately three times as much.
Mr. Fai^: What progress is being made in connection with the housing project at Wain-wright to accommodate the families of the officers and personnel at that camp?


Brooke Claxton: Housing comes up under the three services, navy, air force and army. It would be more convenient to deal with that subject then. It does not come under this item at all.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, $15,000.
Mr. While (Middlesex East):: As I understand it, we are dealing with repairs and upkeep of buildings. Earlier in the session I directed a question to the minister regarding the central ordnance depot No. 27 at London, Ontario. A couple of days later he replied saying that increased security precautions were being taken. All this came about in response to the disastrous fire here in Ottawa, where large quantities of military stores were lost.
In the very early hours of Tuesday morning I took the opportunity to go down to the central ordnance depot. It is in my riding. I went down there to see what conditions were like and I want to say to the minister that the guards were on duty. They were carrying out their work apparently very efficiently, and I could attach no fault whatever to the men and the personnel who were engaged in that work. What I want to say is this. I still do not believe that sufficient security precautions are being taken. We have an investment there of $60 million, spread over an area of some thirty-five or forty acres. They have a self-contained fire fighting equipment and force, but it is not on duty at night. In view of the increasing seriousness of the world situation, it would seem to me that greater precautions should and must be taken not only at London but in all the military installations of one kind and another.	1
It is pretty obvious that sabotage is abroad, and that with the increasing world tension it may increase. We could become very weak militarily if sabotage should crop up in every

Supply-National Defence city that has military equipment of one kind or another in stores. I am just mentioning the central ordnance as an example.
The security officer was training two new men when I arrived there. I could find no fault at all with them in any way, but I do not think we have taken the necessary precautions.


Brooke Claxton: I am very glad the hon.
member brought this up. Naturally we are very conscious of it. The security guards on duty at night are there not only to guard against fire but to give first assistance in the putting out of a fire. This question of security is being pressed on by the services themselves with the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian fire underwriters who have been good enough to give us their assistance voluntarily in checking on anything of that character.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Imperial war graves commission-
Canada's share of maintenance of war graves of world war II, $424,227.
George Randolph Pearkes: Has it been brought to the minister's attention that the graves of the Polish soldiers who fell in Europe in the last war and who were serving so gallantly with the first Canadian army are not being maintained and kept in the same condition as the graves of the Canadian soldiers, the point being I believe that Canada is responsible for a certain amount of money for the maintenance of the graves of Canadian soldiers. Now, suppose there were Norwegian soldiers who had been fighting with us or Norwegian airmen, as there were: the Kingdom of Norway would be responsible for the maintenance of those graves. But so far as the Polish soldiers are concerned, we have a situation where the present government of Poland does not regard the Poles who were fighting in a Polish division with the Canadian army as being patriots of Poland. I understand that today the government of Poland is providing no contribution toward the maintenance of the graves of any Polish soldiers. That may be the reason why these graves are neglected, as I understand they are, at the present time. Therefore, in view of the great contribution which the Polish division made to the cause for which Canada was fighting and the fact that that Polish division was part of the Canadian army, will the government give consideration either to increasing its contribution or seeing that these graves are properly marked and properly maintained?


Brooke Claxton: We will be very glad indeed to give that consideration. Of course the hon.

member knows that we are partners in the imperial war graves commission, and even if we desired to do so we would have to consult them; but I will be glad to look into it.


George Randolph Pearkes: Because they were fighting with us.


Mr. Ferguson:: This is a very important item. Can the minister give the committee this assurance, that the grave of any man who fought at any time with the allies, irrespective of origin or place of birth, and made the ' supreme sacrifice, will be properly marked and looked after? Will the minister give me assurance that everything in his power will be done along that line?


Brooke Claxton: In so far as they are veterans who served with Canadian forces, that is being done. In so far as they are veterans who served alongside the Canadian forces, we will have to look into the case, and we shall be glad to do so.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If they fought for the same cause does the minister not think that the taxpayer would be glad to see that their graves are properly looked after?


Brooke Claxton: There are a great many different cases. For example, Italians fought side by side with us, and I could mention others. They would have to be investigated.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not care what the nationality is.


Mr. Brooks:: How are the amounts apportioned among the different nations of the imperial war graves commission?


Brooke Claxton: It is related to the number of graves. Canada's graves number 43,391, or 7-8 per cent of the total, and our contribution to the fund is made on that basis. Those are ours in the great war of 1914-18.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In other words we look after our own graves.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to ask a question which was brought to the attention of the house last year and I did not hear how the matter was finally resolved. The suggestion was that permanent headstones in the cemeteries in Europe did not bear the regimental insignia, the names of the regiments of the soldiers who lost their lives. I was in one of the cemeteries myself, where the permanent headstones gave the name, the number and rank, and then just the notation, "Canadian Corps of Infantry" or "Canadian Artillery". They did not have the regimental names or crests. This point was raised last year, but I have not heard how it was resolved.

I strongly urge the minister that if the regimental insignia and regimental names are not on permanent headstones, steps should be taken to see that they are put on.


Brooke Claxton: About two years ago, when
this matter was first brought to my attention,
I looked into it at once. The government decided that in respect of all Canadians killed in the second world war the headstones should bear the names of their regiments or corps and dates of death, in addition to ranks, regimental numbers and the names of the deceased. It was also decided that in the case of soldiers whose origin was known to be French the headstones would be in that language, and also that the signs at cemeteries and the direction signs leading to cemeteries would be in both languages, as well as the language of the country in which the cemetery was located.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And that is being done
now-all headstones are being altered?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. In the case of some
which were erected before this was brought to my attention, we shall replace or change these when we have completed the rest.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister explain
the policy being followed in so far as the graves of soldiers who fall in Korea are concerned. It may be that the imperial war graves commission has not yet set up an organization in the Far East. While it is practical for people to visit graves of relatives who have fallen in Europe, it is an entirely different matter, and probably will be for many years, for people to visit the graves of men who fell in Korea. Would the government give consideration to bringing those bodies back to Canada, because I see the greatest difficulty for visitors wishing to go to Korea.


Brooke Claxton: Consideration has been
given to that matter, but no decision has been reached. Naturally we would want to co-operate with our sister nations in the commonwealth, as we have so far agreed on our policy with respect to the disposition of bodies of service personnel who have been killed. I appreciate the difficulty to which the hon. member refers, and consideration will be given to the final disposition.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to take up time
of the committee, except to say that I entirely disagree with both the minister and the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Brooke Claxton: I have not made any decision.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think it is a great mistake,
as the Americans have done, to bring great numbers of soldiers back home for burial in their own land. I am sure if the soldiers
Supply-National Defence themselves could have been consulted they would have wanted to rest where they were. As for the parents being able to get to Europe and to other places, well, I do not suppose that there is one parent in five or six hundred who will see those graves, whether they are in Europe, Korea or wherever they may be. For my part I hope the minister will not give too serious consideration to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Royal Canadian Navy, civil salaries and wages, $15,571,900.
Mr. Harkness:: Why is there this large
increase? Is it accounted for by the increase in the number of people in the dockyards, or just what is the reason for this considerable increase?


Brooke Claxton: This increase is partly
explained by the increased salaries and pay of civilian workers, and in part by increased activities of the navy. The numbers are to be increased from 6,331 to 7,121, an increase of 790. By far the greatest part of that is in the dockyards and is in respect of increased naval activities, including the refitting of ships, the rearming of ships and more work at sea.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many of those 7,121
are employed in dockyards?


Brooke Claxton: At Halifax there are 2,459
and at Esquimalt 1,987.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Civilian allowances, $87,931.
Douglas Scott Harkness: What are these civilian
allowances? Why is the item here at all?


Brooke Claxton: There is an increase of $45,931 and it is largely for transportation allowances, living and rental allowances at locations outside Canada, and northern allowances for men employed in the far north. The increase is partly due to the increased size of the service and partly to increased activities. In the current program totalling $87,931, transportation allowances are $75,000 and living and rental allowances are $12,931.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Pay and allowances, $30,879,387.
George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister say how recruiting is progressing so far as the navy is concerned toward the objective that was set?


Brooke Claxton: The present strength of the navy as at June 25, 1951-and of course it is an estimate in respect of the month of June-is officers, 1,593, and men, 10,115, a total of 11,708. Recruiting for the navy over
4776	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the past six months has been as follows: January, 288; February, 476; March, 591; April, 421; May, 249; and June, up to the 25th, 383: a total of 2,508. It is meeting the planned requirements.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a question to ask on that point which I think will be of general interest. When are they going to start to recruit a women's division for the navy as has already been undertaken for the army and the air force?


Brooke Claxton: We shall be recruiting women for the naval reserve at a very early date. The date has not yet been fixed, but I would expect it would be some time during the summer. To organize and assist in that work we will be calling up a limited number of women's naval reserve officers for full time service. It is not the present intention to recruit women for the regular navy.


Mr. Gillis:: Has any consideration been given to the establishment of an allowance for a dependent mother, or dependent mother and father? There is an allowance for the wife and children. There are many cases- and I have written about some of them myself-where the dependent is either the mother, or the mother and father. It applies to all services. Has the department given any consideration to that matter?


Brooke Claxton: In answer to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, consideration has been given to the matter. It has been raised by him and a great number of other members. However, as I explained before-and I will be glad to give the hon. member the reference to the explanation-in planning increased pay rates on a unified basis for all three services in 1946 an effort was made to approximate the scales of pay and allowances of officers and men of the armed services to those which men doing equivalent work, and of equivalent seniority, would get in the eight leading industries of Canada. At that time a very extensive study was made as a consequence of which the pay rates were established. It was decided at that time not to make any allowance in respect of mothers and other relatives other than the wife and children. So far it has been the view of the services, I may say, and of the government, that we should adhere to that policy. Whether or not we could do it if the armed forces continue to grow at the rate they are, and if our undertakings and activities extend further, remains to be seen, but the matter is being constantly considered.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to follow that up. While the situation creates considerable hardship where the enlisted person maintains a home, there is another angle which is much worse. There is something coming home


while the boy is living; there is an assignment of pay. But if he dies on service then the dependents are in a rather awkward position to go to the Department of Veterans Affairs and claim a pension of any kind. It is a rather serious problem, and a large number of service personnel are affected when you consider the three services. I am glad the minister is considering it, and I hope he will come to a final conclusion soon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister gave the number of officers and men in the navy as at June 25. I should like to ask how many officers and men it is estimated that the amount of $30,879,387 will cover.


Brooke Claxton: At the present time 13,440.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, this $30 million odd will pay for-


Brooke Claxton: 13,440.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And I take it that is the number you expect to recruit by the end of the year?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. At the current rate we will do better than that, and if so we will find the money for them from some other source or ask for a supplementary if necessary.


Mr. Fraser:: The minister said that women's naval reserve officers might be called up later. Has he any intention of taking married women? There are a number who were in before and they would like to get back into active service again.


Brooke Claxton: Certainly we will give preference to single women, and whether or not we take on married women will depend on the number of single women who offer their services.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What would happen if a married woman applied now?


Brooke Claxton: We would put her on a list.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You would put her on a list?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are some who wish to join. I know some of them, and they would make good officers now just as they did in the last war.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any portion of this item contained in the item of $329 million referred to yesterday, and which is to be found on page 275? I do not know whether the minister would like us to ask in each case if any proportion of the particular amount is carried over into the $329 million, or whether when we come to that amount under the final item the minister will be prepared to present a table showing how that sum is arrived at.


Brooke Claxton: I can give the basis of it when we come to it or now, but there will not be any list. There is no list of items because it is arrived at by examination of the total for the navy, army, air force and defence research. After consideration by officers of the department together with officers of treasury board, the Department of Finance, the Department of Defence Production and others, a figure is arrived at which it is estimated we are unlikely to spend out of that vote this year. In arriving at that estimate we make full provision for pay and allowances, food, clothing, and.so on, for the number of men we plan to take on at the times we plan to take them on.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister was able to give a fairly definite amount last evening of $1,900,000.


Brooke Claxton: That is the only specific item.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the only one in which you can give a definite amount?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: All the rest is just an approximate estimate?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: So it is no use asking whether any proportion of this can be saved. The minister will simply say he hopes to save something.


Brooke Claxton: That is right; not on pay and allowances, but on construction.


George Randolph Pearkes: You may save something on that?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I can give the items for the navy, army, air force and defence research.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps it would be better to give them at the end.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I have understood the minister correctly his statement seems to flatly contradict what I understood him to say last night when we were talking about the item of $3 million for headquarters. At that time I understood him to say he was able to assure us that of this figure of $329 million on page 275, $1,900,000 represented the headquarters building.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I cannot square that with what the minister just said, that we cannot get similar figures in respect of each of the items, some of which run into tens of millions of dollars. He now says all that is done is to take what I understand to be a percentage figure at the end;
Supply-National Defence in other words that the $329 million does not mean what I at any rate thought it meant last night, that it is just a percentage calculation.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry the hon. member misunderstood me. That probably arose from the fact that in the case of departmental administration we are dealing with a branch of the department which is relatively static and similar to that of another government department. It is not expanding like the armed forces; it is not dealing with large amounts for construction, except for this single item. In that case, as I say, $1,900,000 was considered very unlikely to be spent in 1951-52.
In the case of the navy, army and air force, however, we have found that if we estimate in detail for a program of $1,900 million, as we do, covering literally hundreds of thousands of projects, we are not going to be able to complete all of them; and from our experience we have found that in1 the case of the navy, approximately 15 per cent will not be spent. In the case of the air force because of the nature of the equipment, particularly aircraft, the uncertainties involved in the procurement of material from the United States and construction problems, the factor is 221 per cent, while in the case of the army it is 15 per cent, If we did not do it in this wiay we would be faced with two alternatives, either of which would be much less satisfactory than the present arrangement. If we put in detailed estimates which were fixed covering the total program of $1,900 million, from our experience we would not be able to spend more than $1,500 million or some figure of that magnitude, and therefore we would have an unexpended surplus of from $300 to $400 million in respect of national defence. We would be asking parliament for more money than we knew we could spend. If on the other hand we put in for the cash we knew we could spend, say $1,500 million to give the example, and no more, the same principle would still apply and because of the uncertainties due to delivery of equipment that is still in the process of development, construction and other uncertainties, we would spend only $1,200 million, and that at a time when we are increasing the armed forces at the present rate.
Hon. members will recall that when I appeared before them at this time last year I was seeking $425 million. The amount we are likely to spend this year through all sources is about $1,780 million, four times as much. That rate of increase is far greater than we experienced at any time during the second world war. Indeed today we are spending on defence more than we did during either the first or second year of the second

Supply-National Defence world war. The same situation exists in the United States. They have a cash appropriation for a much larger sum than they can spend, but they can carry it over from year to year. This arrangement was worked out by the Department of Finance to give the utmost possible control over the program and at the same time provide for flexibility so we might spend as much as possible to do the most we can in each fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Royal Canadian Naval Reserve-
Civil salaries and wages, $326,400.
Léon Balcer: What is the actual complement of the naval reserve at the present time?


Brooke Claxton: The last figure I have is for April 30, 1951. It was then 3,769.


Léon Balcer: Does the department expect
a large increase?


Brooke Claxton: We hope to build it up. One of the limiting factors is the number of ships we are able to put to sea each year to train both the active and reserve forces at sea. We do not want to take more men into the reserve than we can train at sea. However, our expectation is that the reserve will be built up substantially this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What increase has been
authorized in the establishment? The minister said they hoped to build up the number, and I wondered what was the present authorized establishment, and what increase that represented.


Brooke Claxton: The establishment has been
fixed at the same figure of 7,500 for several years.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land, $115,000.
Mr. Higgins:: I think this is the only item
on which I can ask the minister whether any decision has been made to put back into service the former royal navy installations, machine shops and so on, at St. John's and the R.C.N. installations at Bay Bulls, or what is to become of the various installations?


Brooke Claxton: No decision has been made
to put them into service. Consideration is being given to the latter, but not very actively to the former.


Gordon Francis Higgins: To the installations at Bay
Bulls?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask how the installations at St. John's are maintained at the present time? There are some very fine machine shops there.


Brooke Claxton: The Department of Public Works is maintaining them for Canada, I understand. The hon. member will correct me if I am wrong, I am speaking from memory of my own visit there, but I believe they are being operated by the Canadian National Railways.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not believe all of them are.


Brooke Claxton: No, a part of them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I just wondered what became of the other part. They were very valuable, and it is a pity to let them go.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
General-
Professional and special services, $2,139,512.
George Alexander Drew: What is the explanation for the increase in this vote, and what does it cover?


Brooke Claxton: It is primarily due to the increased naval program and the increase in personnel, necessitating a considerable increase in the cost of fees for special courses which we pay to the royal navy. It also includes the services of the corps of commissionaires, professional fees, architects, engineers, land valuations and legal services, medical and dental services for consultants, and special services. The item I mentioned, fees for special courses, constitutes more than the entire increase. The figure for this year, 1951-52, is $1,514,512, as opposed to $463,350 for 1950-51.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Telephones, telegrams and other communication services, $361,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that there is a considerable reduction in this item this year. I wonder if the minister could tell me how the department managed to make that saving, and possibly some other departments could follow their example.


Brooke Claxton: The decrease is due to the fact that terminal equipment for supplementary radio and land line circuits was provided for and purchased in 1950-51. It is now only necessary to provide for the maintenance of such equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Printing of departmental reports and other publications, $344,800.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This vote is more than double what it was last year. Would the minister explain why this large increase was necessary?


Brooke Claxton: The increase is due to the increased cost of printing, and the fact that with the increase in naval personnel it will be necessary to provide for additional sea-

men's manuals, naval general orders and other publications necessary for training. The admiralty in London is now charging the Royal Canadian Navy for the supplying of necessary naval publications which were formerly furnished on a no-charge basis.
The items are:- Printing and reproduction of books, drawings, and specifications for the Royal Canadian Navy, $50,000; printing and reproduction of books and drawings by the Canadian, Bank Note Company, $10,000; printing for the Royal Canadian Navy of chapters and amendments to K.R.C.N., and reprinting various chapters and sections thereof, $10,000. Those are partly the regulations consequent upon the adoption of the National Defence Act. Printing of the Crowsnest, $35,000; printing the history of the Royal Canadian Navy, volumes I and II, which are now in the printer's hands, $20,000. Purchase for the R.C.N. of signal publications, cryptographic aids and technical books from the U.S. navy department, $40,000; purchase from the admiralty of books of reference, air publications, drawings and specifications, $50,000; production of material for the R.C.N. by the king's printer's duplicating plant, $39,800; reprinting K.R.C.N. and N.G.O.,	$60,000.
Printing B.R.C.N., radio fundamentals-electronics, $20,000; subsequent promulgation to N.G.O.'s in the form of amendments to existing orders or new orders, $10,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is it expected that most of these items will not be recurring, such as the printing of a lot of these technical books?


Brooke Claxton: That is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is an item which we might expect to see reduced next year?


Brooke Claxton: I would hope so, because the job of printing K.R.C.N. is an enormous one, and a similar job has to be done for all three services in both languages.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us what the Crowsnest is which cost $35,000? I presume it is a publication. How many copies are distributed?


Brooke Claxton: It is distributed to all naval personnel in both the Royal Canadian Navy and the reserve. It is also distributed to the reserve officers' associations in order to maintain interest in the navy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How often is it published? How many copies go out?


Brooke Claxton: Once a month.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is its circulation?


Brooke Claxton: It is 6,000.


Léon Balcer: Is this publication printed by the king's printer?
Supply-National Defence Mr. Claxton: It is either printed by him or else the order for printing is placed through him.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Films, displays, broadcasting, advertising and other informational materials with the exception of publications, $500,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice there is a substantial increase in this item from $180,000 to $500,000. From the nature of this item, I presume it is connected with recruiting.
I would ask the minister if that is correct. Does it include films for instructional purposes in the navy? What has the cost been for recruiting purposes up to date in the navy?


Brooke Claxton: This item is entirely for recruiting.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the minister give us any idea of the cost of recruiting up to date for the navy?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, I have it. Perhaps we might go on with something else and I shall give it to the hon. member before we rise or at the next sitting.


Léon Balcer: Will the minister tell the committee if all the films that were made for the department were made by the national film board or by private film companies?


Brooke Claxton: The only ones I have seen were made by the national film board. If that answer is not correct I shall inform the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Materials and supplies, $60,189,708.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish the minister would give us a break-down of this item.


Brooke Claxton: The increase is attributable again to the increased program, increases in service personnel and the new shipbuilding program as well as the navy's participation in Korea and the commissioning of additional ships and establishments. It covers the cost of materials and supplies required by the Royal Canadian Navy such as fuel, clothing, food, naval stores, ammunition and bombs, medical and dental supplies, mess drapes, barrack furniture and galley equipment. I can give the items. Fuel for heating and cooking and power generating unit, $1,489,300; clothing and personnel equipment, $12,685,560. The increase there, as will be found in connection with other increases in clothing and similar items, is in an effort to build up mobilization stores. Gasoline, fuel oil and lubricants for ships, aircraft and motor transport, $2,918,875; food supplies, $3,825,764; naval stores, $17,055,650; medical and dental
4780	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence supplies, $185,000; ammunition and bombs, $16,240,999; barracks, camp, hospital and miscellaneous stores, $5,788,560.
I obtained a statement which I might give to hon. members-it is rather interesting-on the extent of operations of some of the ships in Korean waters. I obtained the figures for the Sioux, the Cayuga and the Athabaskan. During the year ended March 31, 1951, the Sioux steamed 49,436 miles; the Cayuga, 52,052 miles, and the Athabaskan, 56,660 miles.
I am informed that this is nearly twice the mileage covered by the Royal Canadian Navy vessels during the second world war during a corresponding period. Of course, the distances there are very considerable. This gives me a chance to say that the navy in Korea have given a good account of themselves, as has been remarked on by the officers under whom they have served.


George Alexander Drew: What is the amount in that item by which the figure exceeds the actual amount that it is expected will be spent?


Brooke Claxton: It is 15 per cent over-all of the whole naval program.


George Alexander Drew: No, no. In the case of an earlier item we dealt with, the minister was able to tell us what amount he did not expect to spend. In dollars and cents what is the amount of this $60,189,708 that it is not expected will be spent this year?


Brooke Claxton: As I explained a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, the amount that is not expected to be spent, out of the total program for the navy of $277,754,980, is $41,663,247 or 15 per cent. It is spread over the whole naval program.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has indicated that he has this information in regard to other Items. Has he no more definite information in this case?


Brooke Claxton: That is not the way it is arrived at. We have that information for the item I mentioned. But I told hon. members last night that I would give the basis in respect of the navy, the army, the air force and defence research.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is any change in design of uniform contemplated?


Brooke Claxton: No; certainly no major
change. I have not had one submitted to me.
I know of none.


Léon Balcer: From what the minister has said, I understood that this item covered the commissioning of new ships.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Léon Balcer: I thought the minister said that.


Brooke Claxton: No. There was a phrase that may have given that impression; it was stores required in connection with the commissioning of new ships.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land, $24,147,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to come back to the question we have had up several times, and I am doing it in connection with acquisition and construction of buildings because, as we go through the three services, there are some $292 million, if my addition is correct, for this purpose. Incidentally, I want to point out that what is happening now is illustrating and underlining the fact that we could do this job so much better if we had been able to have a workmanlike committee instead of the committee of the whole house; but I just mention that in passing.
I want to come back again to last evening, and to point out that the acquisition and construction of buildings and works, so far as I can see, is exactly the kind of thing that is done by the Department of Public Works. Again, I thought that last evening we were clear that the Department of National Defence was following the same practice. But it now appears that it was only with respect to the headquarters that that illustration was given.
I want to point out where this leaves the ordinary member of parliament. We have this $292 million which we authorize. We have no details of any of the buildings or of the land which is being acquired. We have to take the whole thing on trust. There is nothing which will enable us afterwards to test the efficiency of what is done, because we have no figures now except this general, over-all figure. What I want to ask the minister is this. Let us leave out the procurement of war materials as something which may perhaps have a special feature of its own which prevents us from applying to it ordinary business considerations. But in the case of the acquisition and construction of buildings, why may we not have the same details as we get in the case of public works?
I admit that this over-all percentage is an easy way out; it is a comfortable way to work. I am sure it probably lessens the amount of work. But as the hon. member for Calgary East said last night, it simply means that to say that parliament has any supervision over this is just to take part in a solemn farce. With the amount of information that we are able to get in this way, we have no real supervision.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I think I have already explained the position with regard to this matter. The situation is this. We have a construction program, which we should like to see completed this year, of $300 million. I think it is more than the hon. gentleman mentions. We have a list of projects. We are endeavouring to proceed with those projects as rapidly as we can. We do that through the instrumentality of the Department of Defence Production, Defence Construction Limited and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We draw plans, issue specifications, process them, let them to tenders; and in order to do that we also have to acquire the land where we have not got it. We cannot tell at this time what proportion of that great program will be completed. We know that we are not even going to begin on some of it this year because of lack of materials, lack of labour, or because other things on which construction is dependent have not yet happened. The situation is quite different from that in the case of the Department of Public Works which, I understand, processes each case before it is put in the estimates, so that it snows within a very small factor exactly what it is going to do in respect of each fiscal year. We cannot know that. We put in the full list of the program we have planned, with the possibility of proceeding this year in some, not proceeding this year in others, never proceeding in some because we change our minds upon further consideration. If all this was ditched now we would lead to a state of confusion which I think would be rather serious. We would have all kinds of representations made by very responsible people that we should proceed with this, that and the other thing, and hon. members know what that involves in the way of activity. But we would also disclose our hand as to the time of proceeding with a great number of things such as additional magazines, ancillary buildings, seaward defences and the like. Frankly I do not think it is practicable to give the details in the estimates. I do not think it would be in the interest of economy and good business practice-I am not talking security at all- to give details of the construction program because it is so likely to change during the year.


Léon Balcer: Can the minister tell us
whether the cost of the two service colleges, or part of the cost, is covered under this item?


Brooke Claxton: There is a provision here for an addition at Royal Roads, but that has not
Supply-National Defence been approved yet by the treasury board. It may be a matter that we shall have to delay until another year.


Léon Balcer: I should like to find out from the minister the actual cost of the service colleges, because on May 10 the minister answered a question of mine in which I asked for a service college in Quebec, and opposed it by saying that it would cost too much. I should like to know how much these service colleges cost.


Brooke Claxton: I will get the information for the hon. member.


Léon Balcer: When may I expect it? Under which item?


Brooke Claxton: It does not come under this item, but I will give it to the hon. member either before we rise at six o'clock or at eight o'clock.


Léon Balcer: While I am on my feet I would like to advocate the opening of a service college for French-speaking Canadians, because as I pointed out earlier, we have very few senior officers of the French language and very few at the headquarters of our three defence services. I think something should be done about it. I am not pointing it out just to raise a racial cry or anything of that kind; I want to make sure that French-speaking Canadians get the same opportunity as other Canadians. We are not asking for any more than anybody else. We are not asking that the minister or the department or headquarters appoint officers who are not qualified. All we want is equality of opportunity. If we ask that an officer be promoted and they tell us that he is not qualified I would be the first one to say, do not appoint him. But I would also like to be sure that an officer of the French language gets the opportunity to qualify himself.
I think the department is making a grave mistake, and that is why I should like to know how much these service colleges cost, because out of a budget of over $1,500,000,000 I am pretty sure that an effort could be made in that way. It would help recruiting; it would help national unity in Canada, and it would also be a great uplift for young Canadians of the French language who enlist in the service today.
During the debate the other day the minister said that at the present time 25 per cent of the cadets are French-speaking. Well, on April 9, in a return from his department, I received the following figures-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I permitted the hon. member to speak about the colleges under the item of construction, but he should not enlarge too far.

Supply-National Defence


Léon Balcer: I just want to press my point.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I know, but the hon. member must be in order when he presses his point.


Léon Balcer: I am advocating a defence college, and I am bringing out the arguments in favour of building such a defence college. I am asking the department to make certain expenditures. I just want to point out the necessity for it. I intend to be very brief. I just want to point out that the minister said that 25 per cent of the cadets were of French origin. According to the return I received on April 9, only 51 out of 509 were French-speaking Canadians. That is only 10 per cent instead of 25 per cent. Will the minister tell me now which of the two figures is right? Is it 10 per cent, according to the return I received on April 9, or 25 per cent, which is the figure that he used in his speech on May 10?


Brooke Claxton: I will have to look at the return. The figures on the cost of Royal Roads, 1951-52, are $666,369 and Royal Military College $887,000. These are the estimates for the current year.
Answering the hon. member's suggestion, I do not rule out the possibility of there being a college in Quebec at some future time. I would hope that if there were it would be for English-speaking as well as for Frenchspeaking cadets. Our policy in the two colleges at Royal Roads and R.M.C. has been to make them colleges in which there is equality of leadership for Canadians of all origins and in the three services. We have been definitely of the view that it is very much better for English-speaking boys at these colleges to mix with French-speaking boys. We have made a special point of teaching French in the colleges. They have French conversational classes.
It seems to us that that is a good approach to the problem of national unity. However, I do not exclude the possibility of having' a college in Quebec either for French-speaking boys or for both. In the event of war I would think it would certainly be necessary, and the expense, whatever it might be, would be justified.
The hon. member would be interested to know that we are opening very shortly at the Royal Canadian Reserve division, H.M.C.S. Montcalm, a course for French-speaking entrants to the Royal Canadian Navy which will accustom them in their own environment to the ways of the navy, and also give them the opportunity to learn the technical terms and all those things which must necessarily be in one language.
We also hope to see established at Laval university a course in military science, where
[The Chairman.]
a special certificate will be given. We have been discussing that arrangement with the university and the archbishop. So that we are fully alive to the desirability of achieving the aim the hon. member has in mind, but we are not convinced that the method he suggests is necessarily the best one at the present time.
Since the matter has been raised, I should like to say in the most emphatic way possible that the proportionate number of Frenchspeaking officers in the three armed forces, of the rank of major and above, is just about the same as the proportion of Englishspeaking officers of the rank of major and above, in relation to the number of officers of the rank of captain and below. Also I can assure the hon. member that I have made a careful examination of the various categories of officers and I have found that, by and large, French-speaking officers receive promotion at a lower age and with less service than English-speaking officers, indicating that if there is any preference it is in their favour.


Léon Balcer: I would not want the minister to think that we are asking for preferential treatment. All we ask is equality of opportunity. The minister has said that there are just as many French-speaking of the rank of major, captain and so on, proportionately, as there are English-speaking. On the 15th of this month, out of 83 officers chosen to follow a staff course, there were only 3 French-speaking. Either that is discrimination or it shows that the minister does not think that French-Canadians should qualify.


Brooke Claxton: It is not discrimination at all. The fact is that there are not as many Frenchspeaking officers, officers whose mother-tongue is French, as there should be, in proportion to the population. That is an unfortunate situation. But this is not due to any policy of the department. It is due to the fact that during the years between the wars it would seem that a career in the armed forces was not greatly attractive to French-speaking Canadians.
Since the war that situation has been entirely different. We are now getting a very good proportion of officers of French-speaking origin. The gap lies in the officers who might have joined between wars, but did not.


Léon Balcer: I am sure the minister does not expect to fill that gap if he keeps a percentage of 10 per cent of French-speaking officers in service colleges. I am not arguing for any preference or for any special treatment. We want only equality of opportunity. I know that, for the young officer who is not familiar with English, it is difficult for him to follow a course in artillery, or something of that

kind. He must go through all sorts of specialized courses just to learn basic English. You may be sure that is the main barrier in the enlistment of young French-speaking Canadians.
The department is making a terrific mistake in failing to see that point. I would be the last person in Canada to ask for the appointment of unqualified officers who would be in charge of the lives of other soldiers. However, I would ask that the department make an intelligent effort along these lines. I believe the establishment of a French-speaking service college, where the boys would have exactly the same training as they would receive in an English-speaking service college would bring satisfactory results.
The minister said the other day that the Royal 22nd Regiment, a French-speaking regiment, is equal to any other, and that others are equal to it. For myself I am ljot satisfied as to the real intentions of the department and of the minister when, only a week ago, out of 83 chosen to take a staff course, only 3 were French-speaking.


Brooke Claxton: This is so important that I
think it must not be misunderstood. The proportion of three to eighty-three should be made in relation to the number of officers trying the entrance exam or to the total number of English and French-speaking officers in the armed forces. As I have said we are anxious to get the largest possible number of French-speaking officers. Far from there being any discrimination against them, as I have pointed out, the figures on promotions indicate that the balance is in their favour. French is regarded by me, by the chiefs of staff and by the department as a positive military asset, as indeed it is; and in every way, shape and form we possibly can we are doing our utmost not only to give equality but to make the best possible armed forces we can in Canada. For that we need a proper proportion of French-speaking Canadians.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Léon Balcer: I should like to ask the minister whether there is any sum of money in the estimates for the building or establishment of a service college in the province of Quebec in the year 1951-52?


Brooke Claxton: No.
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister say where the major amounts are being spent, and what lands are being acquired? Will he give us some details of this sum?


Brooke Claxton: There are very big developments to complete the permanent barracks at the seaward defence base at Halifax. Then at Dartmouth there is a new barracks block, control tower and heating plant. On the west coast at Kamloops there are additional magazine facilities. At Montreal there is a central storage depot, and at Cornwallis a new building for recreation. Then there is additional construction in connection with the Dartmouth armament depot. At Esquimau there is a new barracks block, and there are a number of other smaller items. At Bedford basin there are additions to the magazine. Included in the item are fifty-six married quarters units, and a large payment of $8,390,000 to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for married quarters that they are building for the navy. In Newfoundland we are beginning a new magazine. I mentioned the addition at Royal Roads, and at Regina there is a new reserve building. Included in this total is an amount of $500,000 for acquisition of real property. The rest is for construction.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there anything at William Head?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is that development under the navy?


Brooke Claxton: We have it under a different name. It is acquisition of land. $100,000 is provided this year for the new magazine there and the cost of the land is included in the $500,000 item that I mentioned. That has not yet been established.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add one word before this item carries. I want to reiterate what I said before, that we are put in the position of virtually issuing a blank cheque for something like $300 million in respect to these acquisitions. By reason of the method which the government has seen fit to adopt it has really been made impossible for us to have an intelligent interest in this matter. I think perhaps public opinion is becoming aroused, and it may be that public opinion will be of more interest to the government than it was a week ago.


Mr. Tuslin:: I do not know whether this is the right item, but the Department of National Defence has expropriated a considerable amount of land in two small townships in my constituency. I should like to

Supply-National Defence ask the minister whether any assistance will be given to those townships in lieu of taxes.


Brooke Claxton: If they come under the Municipal Grants Act then of course they would have the advantage of that act.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Major procurement of equipment, $110,954,383.
George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think we can carry an item for $110 million without having some explanation as to how it is going to be spent.


Brooke Claxton: It is largely due to the
accelerated naval program for the building of additional ships. It covers the procurement of major equipment, the building of additional ships, armament, signal and wireless, aircraft, mechanical equipment including transport, special training equipment, machinery, anti-submarine and electrical equipment. The estimate for ships and aircraft for this year is $74,610,000; for machinery, $800,000; for mechanical equipment including transport, $1,497,000; for armament equipment, $11,163,480; for signal and wireless including anti-submarine and electrical equipment, $22,154,303; for special training equipment, $729,600.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister be able
to indicate which if any of those vessels now under construction will be commissioned this year?


Brooke Claxton: No, I would not be in a
position to do that. It is expected that several will be launched, but how many will be commissioned will depend on the progress we are able to make.


Léon Balcer: Would the minister say how
many ships were commissioned during the last fiscal year?


Brooke Claxton: Of the new construction
program, none.


Léon Balcer: Did we get any new ships at
all last year?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Ships out of reserve.


Léon Balcer: What were they; frigates?


Brooke Claxton: The destroyers Crescent,
Crusader and Nootka came out of reserve and were commissioned.


Léon Balcer: Could the minister say whether any of the new anti-submarine vessels are going to be ready this year?


Brooke Claxton: None will be ready, but some vtill be launched this year.


Léon Balcer: You mean the keels will be laid.


Brooke Claxton: No; the keels of several have been laid, and several will be launched in the autumn of 1951, but none will be ready this year. These vessels are well in advance of any ships of their kind being designed or made anywhere we know of. They are the last word in this type of construction and we anticipate considerable modification and development in them in the course of construction.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the minister could tell us when the first one was-


Brooke Claxton: No, I could not; possibly
next summer.


Léon Balcer: What I am asking is when
the contract for the first anti-submarine vessel was given to a Canadian shipyard. It seems that ever since I have been here, when the minister was giving us the program for the navy he has always told us that right now Canada was going to get the last thing in anti-submarine vessels, and so on. I have been here over two years and we are still waiting for one of these vessels to be commissioned.


Brooke Claxton: This is really a matter for
the Minister of Defence Production, but in the case of a new vessel of a particular type like this I should think that the minimum period for the production of the first ship would be three years. It has most complicated electronic and wireless equipment, as well as a type of machinery not yet manufactured in Canada. So we would anticipate at least three years for the production of the first vessel, and after that they would be produced faster. I think we are at least a year ahead of any other country I know of in this field.


Mr. Picard:: Are we on item 245?


The Deputy Chairman:: Yes, subitem 16,
the details of which appear at page 270.


Louis-Philippe Picard: It is not the whole item you
are adopting now?


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are studying
item 245 but long -ago we agreed that we would do so by examining the details which commence at page 269. We are now on page 270, subitem 16, which deals with the major procurement of equipment, $110,954,383.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Then when you say "carried"
it does not mean the whole item is carried?


Louis-René Beaudoin: No.


Léon Balcer: Could the minister tell us
Whether the department intends to build or buy or borrow a new aircraft -carrier for Canada?
[Mr. Tustin.j


Brooke Claxton: Not at present.


Léon Balcer: Does the department intend to continue operating H.M.C.S. Magnificent, even though it is becoming more obsolete each day?


Brooke Claxton: It is becoming more obsolete each day only in the sense that every ship and every aircraft starts to become obsolete from the time it is on the drawing boards. This carrier is of a type still in active operation by the royal navy; its aircraft are well up to operational standards, and we will continue to operate it as long as that is the decision of the government.


Léon Balcer: Does the minister think
Magnificent can serve as a carrier for jet
planes?


Brooke Claxton: Not without very substantial modifications. Anyway, as far as we know jets are of no use in anti-submarine activities, which is the role of our navy. Magnificent is an anti-submarine vessel, very well designed and equipped with aircraft for that purpose. W'e have no intention at present of operating jets off her or off any other aircraft carrier, because the jet is not a suitable weapon for anti-submarine work.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Repairs and upkeep of equipment, $16,503,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister indicate how many vessels are in reserve which it is not intended to recommission but just maintain in reserve? I presume this item would cover that. If it is not easy to find the actual number of vessels, perhaps the minister could tell me the amount of money to be spent on the maintenance of this reserve fleet.


Brooke Claxton: We expect to maintain in reserve 15 frigates and 18 Bangor minesweepers. We will not refit and rearm them completely, but we will put them into such condition that they can be operated and recommissioned as crews become available at the end of the three-year program. They are kept in reserve to meet an emergency.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Army-
Canadian army-active force-civil salaries and wages, $16,844,200.
George Stanley White: I am not certain whether the matter to which I wish to refer deals with the active army or the reserve army.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wants to ask a question about civil salaries and wages relating to the reserve forces, that is a separate item in the next set of details.
Supply-National Defence


George Stanley White: A considerable amount of money has been spent on advertising to secure men for the forces. It has been drawn to my attention that a young man who entered the army at the age of 15 or 16, who served a good many years-I believe he had only three years to serve before he was pensionable-was discharged with exemplary service. At the age of 35 he has again applied for enlistment, and has been refused. He went overseas into Brest and back again.
I am just wondering why that should be when we need men. He is a man with 15 or 16 years' experience in the army. He found out later that men who had been court-mar-tialled for different things overseas were returned to Canada and retained in the army, while he was discharged and has since been refused admission to the army. Would the minister say something about that?


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member would
give me the name of the individual concerned, I should be delighted to look into the matter and give him a full explanation. In the absence of the facts, I could not possibly deal with it on a hypothetical basis.


George Stanley White: I shall give
the minister the name. It is Mr. E. W. S. Forrest.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know from
the minister if the people earning civil salaries and wages in the army are under the chief of staff.


Brooke Claxton: The civilians in the three
services are attached to a local office or station establishment of the navy, army or air force, and come under the instructions of the immediate commander of the station or office to which they are attached. The commander, in turn, is responsible to the chief of staff, so remotely they come under the chief of staff. From the point of view of arrangements for employment, conditions of work, relations with the civil service commission, promotion and so on, they come under the deputy minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. minister
for his explanation. I have something to say about the chief of staff, who has rendered valuable service and who can be pensioned. I mean General Foulkes. It would be easy to replace him by one of the most distinguished officers of the British army or in the whole world; I mean General Alexander who is now our governor general. I do not say that merely because he is a man for whom I have great admiration, but because of his competence. As General Eisenhower is in charge of the United Nations troops in Europe, it would be a fine gesture to have General Alexander appointed as the

Supply-National Defence chief of staff. It would not make much difference because at the present time, as governor general, he is commander in chief of the Canadian army. It could be easily done. We would have someone of exceptional ability, a man who is diplomatic. There are very few people who will nat recognize that both General Eisenhower and General Alexander have the same ability.
This is my suggestion to the minister, who is the best minister since Mr. E. M. Macdonald, who was in charge of the department when I came here. We have now the best Minister of National Defence that I have known since I have been a member. I should like to have as chief of staff the best general that I know.


Brooke Claxton: I do appreciate the words of the hon. member. I join with him in his appreciation of His Excellency, whose name I understand we are not supposed to mention in this house, but on this occasion I certainly join in the member's appreciation of him as an officer. I do not know how he would entertain the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Civilian allowances. $10,000.
Louis-Philippe Picard: I suppose this is as good an
item as any under which to make the few remarks I have to make at this moment. They more or less concern some of the remarks that were made this afternoon by the member for Three Rivers. I heard the member, and I should like the minister to understand that on this side of the house there is at least one member if not more, but I can speak only for myself, who shares the views expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Three Rivers concerning the advisability of a French language college for the services, and his remarks as to the proportion of officers of French origin in the Canadian army. The minister answered that in peacetime it was not apparent that a career in the armed forces was very attractive to French-speaking Canadians. He may have said more of the truth than he thought when he said that, because many would have liked to join, many had splendid records during the war, but when peacetime came they could not get a commission in the regular forces. Many of those who did felt that they were not very happy.
I do not want to make this into a question of nationality or language only, but I think in all fairness to the people of Canada a better effort should be made towards greater participation by officers of French origin in the armed forces. The minister stated that some French-Canadian officers got a promotion at an early age. It may be that some of them

did, but so very few could get in that it does not change the picture much when we come to consider the proportion. The minister stated that they could get in, had they wanted to do so. I should like to know where they could have served. If I understand the matter correctly, it was only in Quebec at the citadel where the 22nd regiment was situated, where French-Canadian officers were taken in, and in Montreal in one of the regiments. That is as far as the active army was concerned before we had the Korean episode or the war in Korea. Frankly, I believe that the minister intends to do something, and I think the minister in the past has intended to do something. I will go so far as to say that I believe his present deputy minister is sympathetic toward the situation, but we need more than sympathy. I think that more positive gestures should be made.
I personally know of a group of young men who served gallantly during the first war and who were turned down when they tried to make a career in the army. Some of them had earned promotions in the field, had obtained higher rank, but when it came to ' getting in the army in peacetime they were told they did not have this or that university diploma and they were not considered acceptable for peacetime duties. Yet when some of these men got back to civilian life, they made a career and became prominent citizens in the field they had chosen. Surely the army could have accepted some of those people.
When you see here in Ottawa the list of officers serving at headquarters, the list of junior officers, the list of messengers, and the list of those in any category in the Department of National Defence, I do not think it is quite correct to come and say that the proportion is fair. I say this to the minister because we may be at a time when we shall again have to consider as most valuable the unity of all Canadians. The fact that Canadians of French descent enlisted so well in the reserves at the present request of the minister proves that they a're willing to do their share. But their share should not be done only when they are under fire. When, in peacetime, the army is reorganized I feel that they should be given a fair chance of promotion. Maybe I am wrong, but by looking at the list of headquarters staff very closely I could not find many French names. Maybe those included in the proportion mentioned by the minister are hidden somewhere.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is this in order, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Nevertheless, I say that there should be improvement in this regard.

The hon. member for Three Rivers advocated a college for the services which would be open to officers speaking the French language and where the lectures or tuition would be given in French. Whether it is given entirely in French or whether it is bilingual, as the minister has suggested, I think that a college catering especially to young men from French Canada who have the necessary education might serve us well if the time comes-and it may come sooner than we think-when we again have need for greater unity. If you have such a college, and if you have trained these young men, you might find a great many more who would join and who would feel that they can get a career in the army not only under fire but also in peacetime.
I do not want to extend these remarks at this moment, late in the session, but I want the minister to feel that on this side of the house there are also some people who share the views expressed by the hon. member for Three Rivers.


George Randolph Pearkes: Very briefly I should like to associate my views with those of the previous speaker and of the hon. member for Three Rivers. I think it would be well worth while to give consideration to the possibility of establishing such a service college.
But there is a point I wanted to raise under this item. It covers pay and allowances of the active army which would be those forces of the army which are now in Korea; the forces which are now being assembled and trained for the 27th brigade; and the forces that are to remain in the country, in the active army, for the protection of Canada, those generally termed the airborne brigade and other units associated with them. It would also include those reinforcements that we have available both in Korea and for any other operation that might be undertaken.
I do not want the minister to stretch the dictates of security in any way at all, but I feel that the country would be interested in having a statement now giving some indication as to how the recruiting campaign has gone for the 27th brigade, and to what extent it has been necessary to transfer personnel from the airborne unit or the units of the airborne brigade and other permanent force units into the 27th brigade. I should also like to have a clear statement as to the number of reinforcements or replacements that there are available to meet any situation that might occur in Korea. Perhaps the minister could give us a statement with regard to that matter.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I am extremely glad to accept the opportunity extended by the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo. With regard to Korea, I had thought that the unusual circumstances that a Canadian unit had received a presidential citation for extreme heroism, as was announced in Korea the day before yesterday, might enable me to obtain the unanimous consent of the committee to put the citation on the records of the House of Commons, without reading it at length. This is the first time in the history of our country that this has happened, as far as I know; and the citation is in such language that I think every Canadian can be truly proud of the magnificent heroism shown by one of our greatest and proudest regiments.
I refer to the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the minister the unanimous consent of the committee to put this citation on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blackmore:: Why should the minister not read it to us? It seems to me that would be the proper thing to do.


Brooke Claxton: I can read it if there is no objection to my putting it on Hansard. The presidential citation reads as follows:
"3d battalion, Royal Australian Regiment.
2d battalion. Princess Pats Canadian Light Infantry and Company A, 72d heavy tank battalion (United States) are cited for extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of combat duties in action against the armed enemy near Kapyong, Korea, on the 24th and 25th of April, 1951. The enemy had broken through the main line of resistance and penetrated to the area north of Kapyong. The units listed above were deployed to stem the assault. Early on the 24th of April, the 3d battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, moved to the right flank of the sector and took up defensive positions north of the Pukhon river.
The 2d battalion, Princess Pats Canadian Light Infantry, defended in the vicinity of Hill 677 on the left flank, Company A, 72d heavy tank battalion, supported all units to the full extent of its capacity and in addition, kept the main roads open and assisted in evacuating the wounded.
Troops from a retreating division passed through the sector which enabled enemy troops to infiltrate with the withdrawing forces. The enemy attacked savagely under the glamour of bugles and trumpets.
The forward elements were completely surrounded going through the first day and into the second. Again and again the enemy threw waves of troops at the gallant defenders and many times succeeded in penetrating the outer defences, but each time the courageous, indomitable and determined soldiers repulsed the fanatical attacks.
Ammunition ran low and there was no time for food. Critical supplies were dropped by air to the encircled troops, but still they stood their ground in resolute defiance of the enemy.
With serene and indefatigable persistence, the gallant soldiers held their defensive positions and took heavy tolls of the enemy. In some instances when the enemy penetrated the defences, the commanders directed friendly artillery fire on their own positions in repelling the thrusts.

Supply-National Defence
Toward the close of the second day, the 25th of April, the enemy breakthrough had been stopped. The seriousness of the breakthrough on the central front had been changed from defeat to victory by the gallant stand of these heroic and courageous soldiers.
The 3rd battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, 2nd battalion, Princess Pats Canadian Light Infantry, and Company A, 72nd Heavy Tank Battalion, displayed such gallantry, determination and esprit de corps in accomplishing their missions under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions as to set them apart and above other units participating in the campaign, and by their achievements they have brought distinguished credit on themselves, their homelands, and all freedom-loving nations.


Gordon Graydon: Good old Canadians!


George Randolph Pearkes: Has the minister received the official citation, or is this a newspaper report?


Brooke Claxton: This is the official citation made by the general officer commanding in the field, which was communicated to the president and confirmed by him and which will be received by us in due course.


George Randolph Pearkes: And permission will be
granted to the regiment to carry that citation?


Brooke Claxton: Certainly. The hon. member for Nanaimo asked for some figures on the recruiting and strength of the Canadian army at the present time. As at June 25, 1951- again this is an estimate only in respect to the days in June-the army had 3,860 officers and 39,260 men, a total strength of 43,120.
Recruiting for the army showed the following results for this calendar year to June 25: January, 1,545; February, 1,132; March, 999; April, 709; May 6,171; June, 2,530; bringing the total number of recruits for the period, which is approximately the first six months of the calendar year, to 13,086.
With regard to the strength of the 25th Canadian infantry brigade group in Korea, subject to fluctuations in battle, which the hon. member appreciates, it has been up to strength. There are reinforcements to replace all casualties that we may suffer that could not be met by troops dispatched in the interval. In addition at estimated rates of casualties, we believe we have enough reinforcements trained or in training which, with those in Korea, would enable us to look after requirements for five or six months without further additions, although additions are being made from day to day.


George Randolph Pearkes: Reinforcements in Korea?


Brooke Claxton: In Korea or at Wainwright.
With regard to the 27th Canadian infantry brigade group, the results of the campaign have been largely due to the fine co-operation of the 42 units of the reserve army. Up to

four o'clock yesterday afternoon, 8,384 officers and men have been taken on strength, and that is considerably more than the original intended strength of the intended force to be sent to Europe. Recruiting is continuing.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would not include men who have been taken on and discharged? We can take it as being the approximate strength of the brigade?


Brooke Claxton: That is the total number of recruits. The number of men released is 567. In addition there are about 1,600 men who have applied and who have not yet been examined. So that one can say that out of the applications so far made the strength of this brigade group will be approximately 9,000 or more, which will provide very substantial replacements of officers and men for rotation.
With regard to the strength of the forces in Canada, it has not been the practice to give break-downs of the forces especially earmarked for the defence of our country and others in detail, but I can tell the hon. member that at the present time the field force, the active force brigade group, as it is called, is very well on the way to full strength. It has replaced largely the men who left it to join the 25th Canadian infantry brigade group. Its strength at the present time is in excess of 5,000. For the first time in the history of Canada, we have in operational forces, in fighting formations, in the active force brigade group, the 25th Canadian infantry brigade group in Korea, and the 27th Canadian infantry brigade group, in coast and antiaircraft batteries, in artillery units, in the reinforcement and replacement forces, and in other formations of more static troops such as engineers, army service corps and so on, about all the organization necessary for a division. As a matter of fact, we have in the magnitude of 28,000 to 30,000 operational troops at the present time. In other words about two-thirds of the Canadian army at the present time can be said to be operational.


John Horne Blackmore: Before we get too far away from the citation which the minister read, I think it is fitting that it should be put into Hansard that the members of the House of Commons on the whole were enthusiastic in their applause when this citation was read.


George Alexander Drew: The statements that have been made are general statements in regard to the strength of the forces. The statements seem to reflect the idea that we are dealing with this in terms of peace; otherwise the statements would have no meaning,

in view of the fact that we have had such large forces on other occasions when we faced more serious conditions.
The Guardian of the Gulf, a newspaper published in Charlottetown, in its issue of Saturday, June 23, carried a report of a speech by the Postmaster General, and I find these words in that speech:
We have so worked with other Atlantic pact countries as to be sure Russia would be defeated if she attacked today.
In view of certain statements made by senior staff officers in the United States, which do not indicate quite the same opinion, I would ask the Minister of National Defence whether he shares the view expressed by the Postmaster General in these words last Friday.


Brooke Claxton: I certainly believe that
Russia would be defeated if she attacked today or at any other future date. I believe that the resources of the western democracies, and of those that would be associated with them in an all-out war, would defeat the forces of the Soviet union and those that they could muster. However, my object is not to defeat Russia, although I certainly would do everything possible to do it- and would succeed, I believe, with others, should that come about.
Our object is to prevent war by deterring aggression, by building up our forces to the point where an aggressor will hesitate to attack. That is why we are in Korea, and that is why we are in the North Atlantic treaty. That is why the other western nations are devoting such huge proportions of their national effort and national income to the job we have set our hands to.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If the leader of the opposition-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I must point out that we are discussing a subitem for pay and allowances, to the amount of $86,583,800. A question has been asked regarding a matter that was dealt with when we had the discussion on the general item.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On a question of privilege-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The by-elections are over.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I know; but if the leader of the opposition would read the context of the speech he would see that my speech there was in exactly the same vein as that of the minister who has just spoken. The aim of the government is to prevent war.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not see why an answer would not be in order. After all we want to know what results we are getting for the money we are laying out. Before going further may I congratulate the Minister of National Defence upon his confidence. I trust
Supply-National Defence we have preparations to justify that confidence. I would! urge upon him that it would be quite well for us to stipulate that we shall defeat communists, with the help of the Lord, Who so far has assisted us and guarded us.


Brooke Claxton: I do not wish to be misinterpreted. I am only confident provided we all put out a tremendous effort, and keep it up.


John Horne Blackmore: With the help of the Lord!


George Alexander Drew: As the Postmaster General has raised the question, I would point out that either we have a tremendous task ahead of us, or we have not. We know that there is only one possible enemy. We know that possible enemy has been preparing, and preparing carefully for many years.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the leader of the opposition; but, notwithstanding opinions which have been expressed by the hon. member for Lethbridge, and in the opening remarks of the leader of the opposition, when he was returning to the subject because the Postmaster General had risen on a question of privilege, I cannot see how we can discuss policy on a subitem relating to pay and allowances.
I do not like to interrupt hon. members. However, the committee will realize that if a certain procedure has been agreed upon we cannot get away from it, and then try to get back to it. That creates complete disorder. I would ask hon. members to carry on in the manner agreed upon, and confine their remarks to the subitem under discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate your ruling. I would point out that we are dealing with an item of more than $86 million out of a total of more than $116 million involving the army. This $86 million is for pay and allowances for the army. I want to know what we are getting for that amount of money, and it is in relation to that I am asking the question. However, if you rule this is not the appropriate point, there are two or three other obvious points where I could ask the question later. If you feel that it should be deferred, I will accept your ruling. But I will certainly come back to it.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Pensions, superannuation and other benefits in respect of personal services, $203,400.
Clarence Gillis: I should like to say a few words on this item. The minister and others who served on the defence committee will recall that I raised this question in committee, and I also raised it in the house on one other

Supply-National Defence occasion. I shall make my remarks as brief as possible because I want to know if the minister or the department has done anything about this problem I brought to their attention.
This has to do with members of the permanent force who pay in to the superannuation fund. The case I brought specifically to their attention was that of a captain who had served about ten years in the permanent force, who had paid into the superannuation fund, who suffered a heart attack and died while in the service. He left a widow and two children. The widow could never establish pension rights because the ruling was that his death was not attributable to service, as such. War veterans allowance could not be established for her because she was not sixty years of age and was not considered incapacitated.
The particular feature about it, and the one having special reference to this matter of superannuation, is that the money paid in by the soldier, in the expectation that it would protect his family in the event of his death, was refunded to her in a lump sum. The income tax department deducted $650 from that money, for income tax purposes.
I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I have written to the Department of National Revenue. I took it up with the committee that considered defence matters recently, and! I was of the opinion that the deputy minister, when the matter was brought to his attention in the committee, was somewhat shocked to think that that would take place in connection with superannuation arrangements of service personnel.
This matter has been under consideration for at least eighteen months by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence. I am wondering if the department has done any thinking' about the matter, and if any arrangements have been made with the Department of Finance to ascertain whether the widow, whose husband gave gallant service and1 who died; in the service of the permanent force, leaving his family totally unprotected, should be deprived of this $650. This is taken from the superannuation moneys paid in by the soldier while he was in the service.
This seems to be a loose arrangement, and one in connection with which some concrete legislation should be enacted. There is very little encouragement for a man in the service when he realizes that that sort of thing can happen to his family. I know the pension commission has rejected the pension claim for disability purposes. The Department of Veterans Affairs has turned down the widow
[Mr. Gillis.l
because she is not old enough, and she is not incapacitated. But she has two children to look after and a home to maintain, which I think incapacitates the average woman from getting out and earning a living. That angle is not taken into consideration, but I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that he should get in touch with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, and that some arrangement should be made with those departments to relieve that type of income for tax purposes. I believe that widow should be reimbursed the money collected from her by the Department of National Revenue.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to associate myself with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. If the boys whose gallantry we heard of tonight had placed the dollar sign first, rather than human values first, as spectacularly as the Department of National Revenue has placed the dollar sign before human values, we should have heard no such citation as we heard tonight.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister not answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Cape Breton South? It is a very shocking set of circumstances.


Brooke Claxton: I would be very glad to give an answer if it were possible for me to do so. It is a case I have heard of only tonight, but I will be glad to draw it to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. It does not seem to be a matter for this department except from a general interest point of view to see that the rights and interests of those who serve, and their dependents, are looked after.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister not only draw it to their attention but tell them what ought to be done? Certainly this kind of thing is most reprehensible. I doubt very much if ten per cent of the people of Canada would favour that sort of thing. Surely we should have a little more than drawing attention.


Clarence Gillis: I am rather surprised to hear the minister say that this matter has not been brought to his attention. If he will look at the records of the committee that studied the defence bill he will find I made a complete statement on the matter, a little longer than the one I made tonight. His deputy minister was there, and one of his parliamentary assistants was chairman of the committee. I think someone in his department should have taken a look at the record and should have drawn the matter to his attention. I really expected the Department of National Defence to go after the Department of

National Revenue to see if some arrangement could not be made for the refund of that money to the widow in the circumstances I have described.


John Horne Blackmore: 1 feel like the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I think the minister should not be "drawing" matters like this to the attention of these men. He should be "telling" them what to do. If he is going to be charged with the responsibility of conducting the affairs of national defence of this nation he must not have colleagues of his under his feet or clinging to his skirts and making his position impossible. If matters of that sort get abroad among the forces to any great extent, I would not be surprised if a good deal of enthusiasm for the cause would be thereby destroyed.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Reserve force (including Canadian officers' training corps)-
Pay and allowances, $8,000,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: First of all I should like the minister to tell us how many reserve army personnel this vote is intended to cover, and what the strength of the reserve army is at the present time.


Brooke Claxton: The strength of the reserve force at the 30th of April was 46,626. This item would provide for the payment of an average throughout the year of 48,000.


George Harris Hees: How does that figure compare with twelve months ago?


Brooke Claxton: Twelve months ago there were 43,584.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister tell us how many were at reserve force camps last year and how many are expected to go to camp this year?


Brooke Claxton: Last year there were 12,000. Provision is made this year for 16,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I, somewhat fail to understand these figures. The minister stated earlier this year, and as a matter of fact has been stating for some time, that every effort was going to be made to increase the strength of the reserve force, and especially the effective strength. However, apparently the estimates were prepared with the expectation that the strength of the reserve force would not be very much more than it is at the present time or more than what it has been for the last year or two. I should like to ask the minister what steps, if any, are being taken to increase the strength of the reserve force, particularly their effective strength. The figure of 46,626, which the minister mentioned, is of course the number of men on the rolls of the reserve force units, 80709-304
Supply-National Defence and I think the minister will admit that the rolls bear very little relation to the effective strength of the units because a large number of these men turn out very infrequently for drill, and they do not get to summer camp.
While they are on the rolls, they can hardly be counted as the effective strength of a unit. I think it has been admitted by practically everyone having anything to do with the reserve, or the army generally, that one of the things we need in this country is a larger, stronger and more effective reserve force. Up to the present time I have not noted any signs that the government is taking any really effective steps to produce larger and better reserve forces.


Brooke Claxton: During the last three years, speaking from memory but referring to the white paper, the size of the reserve force has increased by approximately 40 per cent. I will verify that in a moment. During the fiscal year 1950-51 a total of no less than 268 officers and 3,198 men of the reserve forces or a grand total of 3,406 joined the Canadian army active force, including the 25th brigade now Korea. From April 1 to May 31 of this year 170 officers and 1,730 men of the reserves or a total of 1,900 more joined the active army. The total number of officers and men who, during this seventeen-month period, have joined the active army from the reserves is 5,366. That is a substantial contribution indeed by the reserve forces of Canada to the active force at this time, and I am sure everyone is very glad that the reserve forces have responded so well. It is no part of the job of the reserve forces of Canada to be ready to meet a fully trained and equipped enemy in battle tomorrow. That is not their role. Their job is to provide support for the active forces, which they are doing magnificently, and a nucleus of trained officers and N.C.O.'s and as many tradesmen and men as possible on which to build rapidly in the event of an emergency.
Everything possible that has been suggested by the reserve force associations except exemption from income tax I think has been carried out, and if hon. members have any further ideas on ways and means of assisting in this work I would be glad to hear them. As far as we can ascertain we are doing everything possible to support the reserve forces and enable them to carry out their job better than ever before. From the point of view of armoury accommodation, for example, it has been increased by 100 per cent since 1939. I think the hon. member for Calgary East will know from his own experience how the conditions of service, training and equipment have been improved. If hon. members know of anything more that can be done we

Supply-National Defence would be glad to consider it. We are in very-close communication with the reserve army units and the units of the other reserve forces, and every suggestion they make is actively pursued.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says everything possible is being done, and he would like any further suggestions. I would suggest for one thing that those units that have had equipment taken away, either to be sent to Europe or for use by the regular forces, should be given either the same type of equipment or whatever new equipment they are to have. I should like to know whether units that have lost equipment for these purposes have had that equipment made good yet.


Brooke Claxton: I am informed that no unit lacks equipment with which to do the training it is capable of doing. The only equipment removed that I know of was some self-propelled guns on tracks which were replaced temporarily by 25-pounders or other weapons in order to enable us to complete the shipments to Europe in full divisions. We are beginning to receive from the United States equipment to replace what was shipped abroad. It will not be issued to reserve army units first, but they have plenty of equipment with which to train.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then the minister drew a red herring across the trail by saying it is no part of the role of the reserve forces to be able to mobilize immediately to meet any emergency, that they are not supposed to be trained to the point where they could turn out and fight tomorrow. No one said they were; that was never mentioned. The minister indicated some of the other roles of the reserve forces, however, and the difficulty is that they are not able to meet those other roles. That has been my criticism. A large number of units of the reserve forces just have not sufficient men to be able to carry on training. As a result their good officers and N.C.O.'s are to a large extent wasting their time because they have no men to train with. Many of them are becoming discouraged as a result and attend parades infrequently or quit.
It is rather illuminating to look at the figures given in this report of the department dated March 31, 1950. At page 88 we are given the number of men in the reserve forces back some time before the war. That was when we were at peace; there was no question as to whether we were in a state of war, as there is at present. At that time we had

these numbers of men in the reserve army, in round figures:
1925-	26	
49,0001926-	27	
49,0001927-	28	
52,0001928- 29	'	
52,0001929-	30	
51,0001930-	31	
53,0001931-	32	
51,000
The figures away back in that period are considerably larger than the number of men in the reserve forces at the present time, in spite of the fact that the population of Canada today is several million more than it was then, and in spite of the fact that world conditions are certainly much graver now than they were then. My own experience, and that of most other men I have spoken to who have served in the reserve forces, is that the reserve force is not nearly as good now as it was back in this period. I think the number of men in the reserve forces should be much greater, while actually it is smaller. It is no good for the minister to make the general statement that we are doing everything possible to create a strong reserve force. If they have not adopted the right method they have failed. The report of the council of the defence forces, made up of men in the reserve units-it is no use putting it on the record again, since it has been read here a couple of times already-stated in very blunt terms that they were not able to do a job because they just did not have the men to do it efficiently.


Clarence Gillis: Has the department any agreement or understanding with employers across the country as to whether leave of absence is granted men for the purpose of attending summer camp? I brought this matter to the attention of the minister a few months ago, when I pointed out that at least one large employer of labour last year did not grant leave of absence to men who went to summer camp with the reserve army. Those men were classified as absentees, which injured them in many ways. In addition they lost a bonus which accumulates as the result of study work. I have written to the department again as far as that company is concerned, and I know the deputy minister is working on it. But I know many years ago when I went to camp all I had to do was go to my employer and inform him I was taking two or three weeks off to go to camp to the reserve army. It does not appear as if that is the situation today. Is there any official understanding on that point?


Brooke Claxton: In each of the last four
years we have taken up with both representatives of employers, the Canadian chamber

of commerce, and employees, the trade unions and others, the desirability of getting full co-operation in facilitating the men going to camp. Each year I write to every major employer in Canada. This year some 3,500 letters went forward, and I received a very good response. So far this year I have only heard of one Arm failing to co-operate and that case has been handed over to the minister in that particular province. He is going to take it up with the firm concerned. The year before last I heard of another firm, and found that it happened to have a government contract. I made some representations to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that situation was speedily rectified. Those are the only two cases of which I know. The hon. member has drawn another case to our attention, and we are looking into that. So far we have had good co-operation from employers right across Canada. A great number of them not only grant leave of absence, but make up the differential in pay during that period.
Answering the hon. member for Calgary East, it should be recognized that the figure he gave for 1925-26 was for reserve forces When the strength of the active force was 4,334. The total strength of the active and reserve forces that year was 54,395. At this time it is in excess of 133,000, so that a lot of young men who used to be in the reserve forces are now in the active forces. I do not agree for one second that either one or the other was as effective as today.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I want to speak very briefly
on this matter of reserve units. It has been discussed before so far as my province is concerned. The minister has expressed himself as toeing quite satisfied with the units as recruited at the present time. I do want to ask him once again-I do this not on my own but at the request of the commanding officers of the reserve units- to have an active service unit with a Newfoundland name established in Newfoundland. The minister is fully cognizant of the value of Newfoundland recruits. I do not think they have been too lacking in the present force, but they do want a name established once again in an active service unit. Every province in the country has such a unit but Newfoundland.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but every province in Canada has not got an active service unit associated with it They are dominion wide. There is the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Royal 22ieme and the P.P.C.L.I., in the infantry, and the R.C.D.'s and Lord Stratheona's. The question of stationing an active force unit in Newfoundland is under consideration for some future date.
80709-304J
Supply-National Defence


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is a possibility, then?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, in the future.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister then
if plans are sufficiently advanced for him to be able to say Whether specified reserve units will be asked to recruit a company for one of the battalions of the 27th brigade? When the minister made the statement announcing the formation of that brigade, he specified the units Which were going to be asked to recruit companies for the various infantry or highland battalions. He said it was hoped that later on other reserve force units might be asked to recruit companies to provide replacements.
We have a very fine reserve force unit established covering many points in the interior. So far it has not been asked to recruit a company, although the Seaforth Highlanders have come all through that part of the country asking for recruits. As an ex-Seaforth officer, I cannot object to that. But as a citizen of the interior and being interested in a fine old regiment, I wonder when it will be asked to form a company. I refer to the Rocky Mountain Rangers.


Brooke Claxton: The only thing that almost
equals the very gratifying support of the reserve force units that sent forth no less than 14,833 applicants for the 27th infantry brigade is the disappointment of the units which were not asked to form active force companies. At a later date we expect to give them all a chance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is not in a position at the moment to indicate when that will be?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Keep this one in mind.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Have the 1,900 men who were
recruited from the reserves been replaced as yet?


Brooke Claxton: I do not know. I get the
reserve force recruiting results every month. I gave the house the results for April 30, and that is the last figure I have.


Harry Oliver White: I want to
associate my few remarks with those of the hon. member for Calgary East. In London, and I speak of London because I know it better than any other area but I believe the same condition applies generally throughout the dominion, we have a very active reserve unit. We have a reserve air force unit and also an army unit. By discreet inquiries I find that sufficient men are not coming forward and offering their services to the

Supply-National Defence reserve units. In view of the very serious world situation and the need for more men, I am hoping that the minister can, by some means or other, get more men to take an active interest in the reserve forces.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister not going to
answer that?


Brooke Claxton: I agree with him.


George Alexander Drew: May I come back to what I
said before? I was referring to the statement of the Postmaster General when he said that we have so worked with other Atlantic pact countries as to be sure Russia would be defeated if she attacked today. The Postmaster General has indicated he was referring to the general desire for peace, and I do not question that at all. He was speaking on the threat of communism. Either we have reached that position or we have not. If we have reached a collective position where Russia would be defeated today, then we have reached a position far in advance-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am
sorry to interrupt the leader of the opposition, but on a similar subitem, which was discussed previously and carried, he attempted to make a similar statement. I indicated then that, in my view, a discussion of collective security and matters of policy was not relevant to the subitem under discussion. The same ruling I made a moment ago applies now. I shall expect all hon. members to relate their remarks to the subitem under discussion which is pay and allowances, subitem 3, $8 million.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a subitem that has to do with the training of men who are apparently to be trained for some purpose; and there is not a single hon. member in this committee who does not know what that purpose is. I shall not repeat the name of the nation which has indicated the reason to all of us why this training has, or should have, some measure of reality. As to the statements that have been made and the answers that have been given, I suggest that, having regard to the nature of the threat that everyone knows exists today, we are dealing with this subject in an atmosphere of complete pretence and unreality. Either this reserve force is being built up with the idea that it will be an effective reserve for the kind of operation that this country might be called upon to accept as part of its obligation or else we are simply going on during a period of comparative peace in which the figures of expenditure before us would be wholly unjustified.

I prefer to believe that the figures before us interpret the nature of the threat and the scale of the responsibility that this country has assumed. I suggest that as we discuss the training of the reserve forces which have been described as the basis of our whole defence organization, we must do so with an acceptance of the fact that, short of war itself, this country never faced a greater threat than it faces at this hour.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think that I have given as much consideration as I possibly could to the possible relevancy of the remarks that are being made by the leader of the opposition on this subitem. I am sorry to interrupt him again, but I do not think that on this subitem he should embark upon a general discussion of the purpose for which the Canadian reverve army is being trained and organized.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you might indicate under what subitem in connection with the reserve forces it would be appropriate to discuss the role they are expected to occupy.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The chairman, of course, is not here to indicate to hon. members what they should discuss and how they should discuss whatever they want to put forward. The chairman is here to decide questions of order whenever they arise.


George Alexander Drew: The training of the reserve is being carried on, as has already been pointed out, at a level much lower in percentage of the actual force available than took place in the years when we accepted the belief that we were at peace. I can best illustrate my point by taking a particular unit which is illustrative of many others. Let me take as an illustration an artillery regiment. An artillery regiment would have a normal strength of approximately 600 men. At the present time an artillery regiment well up to strength, by comparison, has probably 120 to 140 men. When that regiment goes to Petawawa camp for training it will take 40 men. Because of the fact that it has been one of the units supplying men for the special force under the recruiting arrangements that recently have been made, it will not find it possible to take trained N.C.O. personnel up to its establishment. We therefore find that, in a period when the training at least is important, the unit will be taking 40 instead of 60 men to that kind of training which gives it some measure of understanding of active force training.
There is alternative training all throughout Canada for artillery units, infantry units and other units. There is local training in the headquarters and there is also training in

camps in the districts themselves. In the particular district which I have in mind by way of illustration, there is an artillery training camp at Meaford. There it is possible for artillery units within that area to carry out active firing practice; and that is the place where units of that kind get the kind of training that prepares them for service conditions. I am taking that only as an example, and I have reason to believe that a similar situation is found elsewhere across Canada, not only with respect to the artillery but with respect to other services.
The particular unit to which I referred applied for the opportunity to train at the Meaford artillery camp at week ends, where they could take the unit to camp and obtain the kind of firing practice that gives a measure of reality to artillery training. They have been informed in this year, which we are told is the most critical year of the period of training, that they may expect to have a week end of training next October. That is the atmosphere in which training is being carried out, and the sense of reality in connection with it.
As we deal with these figures, and if we accept the statement of the Minister of National Defence that the reserve is the basis of our whole army strength, with these figures before us, I submit that this matter is not being approached in the terms of reality which should be present. I do not think anything could illustrate that statement better than the break-down of the items appearing in the public accounts during the year 1949-50. Those are, unfortunately, the last that are available to us. They indicate the manner in which training has been carried out even at a time when it was considered that there were threats that it was necessary for us to face. In those details, which are available to all the members of this committee, it was disclosed that the amount expended during that period for ammunition and bombs was $2,166,493.11 whereas the amount spent for printing and stationery was $2,345,854.01. In other words, $200,000 more was spent for printing and stationery than was spent for ammunition and bombs which would make it possible to carry out the training of the reserve force and the other forces in this country.
Mr. Chairman, if this country in fact faces the necessity of training men to face whatever they might be called upon to face within the armed forces of Canada, I suggest that we should no longer have the generalities that we receive, that we should no longer be going on in the casual, easy way that we are proceeding, training men at summer camps and throughout the year as though this was
Supply-National Defence a settled period of peace; training only 25 per cent of the low number that are being trained at all in reserve units; and training only approximately 12 per cent of the number actually permitted by the treasury board, according to the evidence given a few weeks ago. Rather, I submit that we should say that this threat is one which calls not only for the expenditure of $1,500 million but also for the training of men with an acceptance of the reality in front of us.
I believe that every member in this house is ready to support expenditures that are to be made for the kind of results that all of us would desire, and would train the men for the one purpose that brings them into uniform. We all want peace, we all respect and admire the young men in uniform; but I believe that it is the job of this parliament to see that with the huge expenditures that we are making we are going to provide these young men with the kind of training that will make it possible for them to meet whatever test they may be called upon to face.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land, $3,247,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: On May 10 when we were in committee the minister said that the accommodation for the reserve army had been increased by over 100 per cent in the last five years. On March 16, 1950, I had a question on the order paper which reads as follows:
What armouries, drill halls and urban training centres for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian army, or the Royal Canadian Air Force are at present under construction in Canada?
The answer I got from the parliamentary assistant to the minister was: "The Canadian army, an armoury at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario." I wonder whether the minister can relate these two statements because they are rather confusing to me. Can he point out where the 99 per cent increase, which I suppose is being shown here in this item, is being spent?


Brooke Claxton: The difference, as the hon. member must anticipate, is in the purchase of existing buildings and the conversion of wartime construction where that has been possible. For example, at Winnipeg there are some eight or ten reserve units stationed in wartime constructed buildings. In Montreal, for example, the seven units of the Royal Canadian army medical corps and the Royal Canadian dental corps are now housed in a building we exchanged for another building. This is situated on St. Urban street; RCEME and engineers are now located in a large building situated on St. James street in the west of the city; and so on. We have bought a large number of buildings across Canada.

Supply-National Defence We thought it was the desirable thing to do. It is much cheaper than building, and it provided units with accommodation they badly needed.


George Randolph Pearkes: How about the division of this $3 million odd?


Brooke Claxton: Purchase of real property, land and buildings, $185,000; construction, major contract projects, $2,556,000; construction, day labour, minor contract projects, $506,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: We would like to know the locations, please.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid I cannot give that until they are approved by council, which is not yet given. The largest single item of expenditure will be at Sault Ste. Marie, to complete the large single armoury there.
With regard to matters that have not yet been approved, I am not in a position to give their locations.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister cannot say where this money is to be spent for large units?


Brooke Claxton: It has not been approved by the cabinet and treasury board yet. The location of each of these places is not selected.


George Randolph Pearkes: I must say that I thought the minister was coming here and asking us to approve expenditures for definite things. Now we cannot tell what this money is going to be spent for, because it has not been approved by some other body.


Brooke Claxton: For reserve army accommodation.


George Randolph Pearkes: Very, very generous.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, in Lethbridge we believe that we ought to have a large armoury. We have a number of reasons which make us believe that the armoury in Lethbridge ought to have priority. We do not wish to be selfish, but we are a rapidly growing community and we are in a strategic position. Will the minister tell us just about what the situation is with respect to building an armoury at Lethbridge?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Nanaimo will appreciate more my position as he hears the question of the hon. member for Lethbridge. A very large number of hon. members have suggested that it would be desirable to have armouries built in their localities, and until it is actually decided to build it and the contract is about to be let we simply cannot announce it. Lethbridge, like a good many other places, is on the list of localities where an armoury is considered to be desirable and needed. It is a question of priority. In the province of Alberta there are about ten places

where we would like to build armouries just as soon as we have the money, the materials and the labour to go ahead. Lethbridge is one of them. Beyond that I cannot give any assurance to the hon. member. It is very high on the list.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would it assist the minister if we all put forward the advantages of the various places where we live and where we have units so that he could let whatever body he is going to refer it to reach a decision.


Brooke Claxton: Thank you.


John Horne Blackmore: It is only fair that hon. members should know something about the reasons why Lethbridge is of importance in this matter. Lethbridge is located on the road that would connect the United States with the Alaska highway. Lethbridge is not very far away from the United States border. There is an excellent place there for training. Lethbridge is on what will be the southernmost route of the trans-Canada highway when that route is completed, and for these reasons I personally believe that it is in a highly strategic position, and I think the minister will agree with me. Consequently I feel that I am quite in order in presenting to hon. members and to the minister a request that Lethbridge should be strictly borne in mind.


Brooke Claxton: Thank you; that will be considered.


George Alexander Drew: If this is the way that these estimates are prepared then we might as well admit that this whole procedure is fantastic nonsense. It is certainly elementary that when the government comes before us and asks us to approve expenditures, it has already itself approved of the purpose for which the money is asked. In these cases where there cannot be specific approval then it may well be that some contingency fund may be set up, as is the case for instance in the Department of National Health and Welfare, to meet obligations of this kind which they actually cannot anticipate in advance. But to come to this House of Commons and to say that the government has not yet approved of any of the things for which these expenditures are asked is a complete denial of the whole fundamental principle upon which the preparation of estimates is based. And if we are called upon to pass this item with no more information than we now have, then we might as well accept the proposition that the passing of these items is a complete farce, from here on.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.

General; materials and supplies, $201,432,075.
George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps we could have a break-down of this. Has it been approved by anybody?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, just as all the other items have. There is a break-down of that I can give:
Fuel for heating and cooking, and
power generating units	 $ 5,549,040
Clothing and personal equipment	 41,074,000
Gasoline, fuel oil, lubricants for operation of mechanical equipment	 2,772,100
Food supplies	 8,976,800
Medical and dental supplies	 2,750,135
Ammunition and bombs	 112,481,000
Barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous stores	 27,829,000
The large item for clothing and personal equipment is for the purpose of enabling us to build up mobilization stores. Then, the item for ammunition and bombs explains perhaps why the amount expended last year was smaller. We were using up wartime stocks.


George Alexander Drew: How much of that item does the minister estimate will not be expended?


Brooke Claxton: The same as I explained this afternoon; this constitutes part of the total for the army, and of that total we estimate 15 per cent will not be expended.


George Alexander Drew: Is that 15 per cent constant for the navy, the army and the air force?


Brooke Claxton: It is 22J per cent for the air force.


George Alexander Drew: But 15 per cent for the navy and the army?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: Then does the minister anticipate that $112 million will be spent on ammunition and bombs this year?


Brooke Claxton: That is the amount we would spend if we completed our full program for this year. Whether or not we can do that will depend upon the supply of materials and labour, and the capacity of plants to turn it out.


George Alexander Drew: I asked the minister if he expects $112 million will be spent this year. If not, what part of it will be spent?


Brooke Claxton: We are going to ask the Department of Defence Production to endeavour to obtain that quantity for us. Whether or not they can do it will depend upon the contracts they make and the deliveries obtained.


George Alexander Drew: I am asking the question of course with a definite purpose in mind-with a recognition of the fact that we have been
Supply-National Defence informed that a decision has not yet been reached to produce rifles and machine guns in our own plants. Therefore I am curious to know how it is possible to expect that we will build anything like this, if we have not yet decided on the weapons to be used.


Brooke Claxton: It is that kind of uncertainty which leads us to introduce the 15 per cent factor.


George Alexander Drew: The 15 per cent factor would be a very small factor if in fact we are not going to have the weapons this year. If we have not started to make them yet we will not have new weapons this year. Cannot the minister give us an estimate of what he expects will be spent?


Brooke Claxton: We are buying a large proportion of the weapons for the first two divisions from the United States. Delivery has already commenced on that. We are buying a very considerable proportion of the ammunition. How much of the ammunition and weapons, in addition to that for the two divisions, will be made in Canada, depends upon what orders can be obtained, and the economic rates of production. That is a matter for the Minister of Defence Production.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
General; acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land, $75,526,500.
Mr. McLure:: Does this item include the construction of an armoury and naval barracks, as we were promised last year? Surely out of one of these items we will get either of those buildings this year.


Brooke Claxton: We have passed the items which would be applicable, but I know the hon. member is interested in the matter. It is not proposed in the near future to construct reserve army accommodation in Charlottetown, because the quality of the armoury at that point is well up. There are many places where the need is more urgent.
With regard to the navy, Charlottetown is one of the three places where we hope to construct new quarters for the naval reserve division. We are beginning this year in Regina. Charlottetown is one of the two remaining places. It is high on the list.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How is this $75 million being apportioned? Is the major portion for married quarters, for the construction of camps, or what is the purpose?


Brooke Claxton: There is $910,000 for the purchase of lands; $68,441,500 for major contract projects; $3,825,000 for day labour and minor contract projects; and $2,350,000 for other acquisitions and construction. The major

Supply-National Defence amounts include $19,909,500 for married quarters; additional properties at Barriefield; Ottawa service accommodation; Calgary camp training area and Vancouver service area. This program provides for our spending a very considerable sum on prefabricated huts, which would be available to meet immediate needs and also for mobilization purposes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You mean these prefabricated houses are not being placed anywhere at the moment? They are just in a prefabricated state ready to be put where needed?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The contract has not been placed yet. The appropriation has not been made. That accounts for $11 million. At Fredericton there is a small project. At Halifax there is an ordnance warehouse, $550,000; Bouchard, Longue Pointe, Montreal; Quebec, St. Malo; Quebec Citadel; Saint John, a barrack block and new mess hall; Barriefield, a barrack and mess hall, heating plant; Camp Borden, two barrack blocks and a mess hall; at Kingston a water and sewage system; London, a barrack block and garage; Meaford, general development; Ottawa, at the 26th O.D., two storage buildings; Petawawa, a large scale development, $1 million, a mess hall, and garage; Petawawa, heating plant; Picton, barrack block, water and sewage system; Churchill, further development, married quarters, laundry building; Dundurn, magazines; Rivers, a storage depot for air training equipment; Shilo, two barrack blocks and a garage; Winnipeg, an ordnance warehouse; Calgary, a barrack block and tank hangar; Chilliwack, stores and work shops covering storage for bridging equipment, central heating plant, water and sewage system; Edmonton, R.C.E. office, stores and work shops, supply depot, ordnance warehouse, central heating plant, water and sewage system; Victoria, a garage, radar building, recreation building; Vancouver, an ordnance warehouse, and at Wainwright a general scheme of development of over $2 million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that there is $19
million for married quarters, $11 million for prefabricated houses, and the rest of the vote, which would be $45 million, is for army camps, permanent barracks, and things of that kind.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At the beginning the
minister mentioned something about Sarcee, but when he read the list Sarcee was not in it. I was wondering what there is in the vote for Sarcee.


Brooke Claxton: It is the purchase of land at Sarcee now being used as the actual training area.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is land you are going to buy from the Indians of the Sarcee Indian reserve?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much land is being purchased from them?


Brooke Claxton: It is not the whole reserve.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The whole reserve is ten
miles wide by thirty miles long, so I would not think it would be that. Could the minister indicate how much of the reserve they are purchasing?


Brooke Claxton: We want to purchase that
part of the Sarcee reserve which we are presently using as a range and practice ground. Speaking offhand, it is something under 500 acres.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Major procurement of equipment. $198,930,650.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a very large item. Would the minister indicate what are the major items of equipment that it covers?


Brooke Claxton: Tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, $32,217,000; mechanical equipment including transport, $30,292,350; armament and equipment, $123,959,000; signal and wireless equipment, $12,262,000; and special training equipment, $200,300.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Over a month ago, when
we were discussing these estimates, in one of his speeches the minister said that equipment to replace that which we had sent overseas for one division would be secured within a month from the United States. Can the minister tell us if this equipment has in fact been secured by this time? It is more than a month since he made that statement.


Brooke Claxton: Delivery has commenced.
It is starting to come in, and we expect it to roll in quite fast from now on. I think it has been coming for a couple of weeks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister does not think he should say so for security reasons it is all right, but if he can say so I should like to know whether there is equipment for more than one division coming in, or is it just proposed to secure equipment for one division?


Brooke Claxton: Equipment for two divisions is on the way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question about a specific item of equipment, namely, artillery weapons. I have waited until we

reached the specific item instead of discussing it on the general item because it seems to me to be a particular problem. As a matter of interest, I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to the forces of ourselves, the United States and Great Britain using the German 88 millimetre gun which those of us who were on the receiving end of it in the last war found so extremely effective and unpleasant. Having discussed this matter with other servicemen, though not at all as experts, it seemed to us this was one place where we might well profit from what I believe was generally agreed to be the most useful all-round piece of artillery on either side during the war. Can the minister tell us whether any consideration has been given by any of the three countries I have mentioned to adopting it, or even preferably, to standardization on a gun of that type?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, consideration has been given to that. The other countries concerned do not admit the generally acknowledged superiority of the 88, and for the time being the United States and ourselves will standardize on the 105. However, there is under development a weapon very superior to either the 88 or the 105.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Built by the United States?


Brooke Claxton: I must not say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it the minister prefers not to answer that. I do not wish to infringe on security. I wonder if I could put it this way. It seems to me that one of the most outstanding features of the 88 millimetre gun was its adaptability to a variety of purposes, as an anti-tank weapon, anti-personnel weapon and anti-aircraft weapon. The one gun had all three types of use. That would seem to me to be one reason particularly why we might use a weapon of that type. Is it considered that the type of weapon to which the minister has referred has this same feature of being useful for all three purposes?


Brooke Claxton: I would not like to give the characteristics of the weapon and still less the one in process of development. I can say that the 3-inch 50-calibre naval gun, for example, that we are making at Sorel under an arrangement with the United States for the United States navy as well as our own navy has all these characteristics to which the hon. member has referred. I would think any weapon of the most modern type will have them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just so I may be clear, that 3-inch 50-calibre gun is for use by the navy, not the army?
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From the minister's answer I take it that he does not care to go any further with respect to the new weapon which has been developed?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would like to know what is meant when the minister speaks of the 3-inch 50-calibre naval gun. If I asked the calibre of our present service rifle the minister would reply -303. From the description of this gun I should think the calibre would be 3 inch, but it is always described as 3-inch 50-calibre. What is the reason for that?


Brooke Claxton: In our parlance we call this a 3-inch naval gun, but to identify it in contradistinction to other naval guns the Americans also indicate the length in the calibres, which is 50, which means the gun is 50 calibres or 150 inches long.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Repairs and upkeep of equipment, $24,042,650.
Mr. Catherwood:: I do not know whether this is the proper item, but I would like to commend the minister and the department on the excellent manner in which they are keeping up the equipment at the Hagersville army camp. I would like to know if it is the intention to build any living accommodation for the personnel there.


Brooke Claxton: No; that is not in the present project for married quarters.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Contributions, grants, subsidies, etc., not included elsewhere, $783,700.
Mr. Maltais:: I would like to know to whom these contributions or grants are made.


Brooke Claxton: These are for grants to bands, libraries, Canadian officers training corps, reading rooms, messes, etc., made in accordance with regulations. I can give the details. In the active force, for example, there are twenty-four authorized bands receiving a grant of $500 each. In the reserve there are 79 bands of 15 pieces each receiving $150, 95 bands of 20 pieces at $200 each, 45 bands of 25 pieces at $250 each, and 130 bands of 30 pieces at $300 each. Library grants are for the active force, command and area libraries, staff college and school libraries; there is one at Halifax and one at R.M.C. Then for the C.O.T.C. there are grants to nine contingents of 48 members or less, $50 each, and so on. A grant of $20 is allowed for 100 reading rooms. Fifty officers' messes were allowed $360 a year. For schools of instruction there

Supply-National Defence is a grant of $100. There are contingency and training allowances for the reserved forces, $180,000; Canadian officers training corps, $2,500; contingent officers, $5,000. Training allowances for reserved forces and the C.O.T.C.; allowances for the care of arms; maintenance of physical fitness equipment, totalling $92,520. Here also are the allowances for the various reserve force units for clerical assistance and organization; grants and allowances for army cadets. Under the northwest highway system there are four different items of allowances. All these are provided in accordance with regulations on a uniform basis across the country.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Northwest highway system-
Civil salaries and wages, $845,800.
Mr. Wright:: I notice an increase this year of something like $4,500,000. This highway is 1,221 miles in length. When you consider the airstrips and connecting roads, it may run to 1,500 miles. The expenditure this year is $12,637,700, which works out at about $8,400 a mile for the maintenance of a gravel road. After we took over this highway, in 1946-47 it cost us $3,642,769 to maintain it. In 1949-50 that cost had risen to $7,231,000. Last year it cost something over $8,200,000, and this year it has gone up to more than $12,600,000. This cost seems away out of line, unless a good deal of new construction is going to be carried on this year. We all want to see the Alaska highway maintained, but it seems to me it should not cost $8,400 a mile to maintain a gravel highway on which there is not very much traffic.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: The hon. gentleman should know his facts before making statements which are liable to mislead the house.


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked a question of the minister. I think I have as many facts in this report as the hon. member for Cariboo has, if not more.


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member says there is not much traffic on the highway. For hundreds of miles that highway passes through the riding I have the honour to represent, and I want to say it is very heavily travelled by both civilian and military traffic. Further than that, the Alaska highway is the only link we have with the territory of Alaska. It is the life line upon which we would have to depend in the event of any attack upon the territory of Alaska. No doubt the money voted is being spent wisely, and the difficulty is that not enough is being voted. On the other side of the Yukon-Alaska boundary the United States is paving the

highway, making it a hard surfaced road. On our side we have a gravel highway, but it is being well maintained. It was left in good shape when the United States army pulled out, and under the Department of National Defence it has been well maintained'. I am sure too much attention could not be given to this life line of democracy in the northwestern part of 'this continent.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member has tried to completely misinterpret what I said. I was not saying anything against maintaining the Alaska highway. I was saying that the cost shown here of practically $10,000 a mile would go a long way toward paving it. It is this cost of upkeep that is out of line with similar costs anywhere else that I know of that I am asking about.


George Matheson Murray: The fact is that the highway is being rebuilt here and there. Bridges are being added; it is being relocated and modernized. Of course the minister can answer the question, but representing that riding I think I have a right to refute any erroneous statements made with respect to the Alaska highway.


Brooke Claxton: The largest single item in the increase between $8,133,268 for 1950-51 and the $12,637,700 for 1951-52 is on construction. This is largely for the continuation of a program of replacing wartime temporary construction, particularly wooden bridges and culverts that were put in by the United States forces during the war. In 1950 we started a program of replacing those with permanent bridges and culverts. Of this sum $3,281,000 is required to continue the work we began last year in the operation of making this into a permanent highway.
In addition, there are small items for the construction of a sewage system, a sewage disposal system and water storage and pumping facilities. At Nelson there is the construction of a building for troops, $110,000; at Whitehorse, there is another building, $180,000. As the hon. member will see, out of a total increase of $3,658,000, $3,281,000 is this year being spent to complete work that was started last year.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The next is Royal Canadian Air Force, subitems 1 to 21, $90,074,612.
Royal Canadian Air Force (Regular) -
Civil salaries and wages, $12,554,139; civilian allowances, $253,135; pay and allowances, $66,003,768; travelling and removal expenses, $6,852,014; freight, express and cartage, $4,307,300; pensions, superannuation and other benefits in respect of personal services, $104,256; total, $90,074,612.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with this
there is a newspaper item which reads:
Airline Named to Operate Calgary Depot
Calgary, May 3. The operation of R.C.A.F. No. 10 repair depot at Currie Field, Calgary, will be taken over by Canadian Pacific Airlines, June 15, at the request of the defence department.
Will the minister tell us why that action was taken? On what basis is the operation of this No. 10 repair depot to be conducted by Canadian Pacific Air Lines?


Brooke Claxton: We are making arrangements with a number of contractors to maintain and repair R.C.A.F. aircraft on much the same basis as was done during the war. Hon. members will recall Canadian Pacific Air Lines did this job to a considerable extent across the country. We have made arrangements whereby the contractor will lease the building and equipment and do the job of maintaining and repairing aircraft on a contract basis.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the reason for that the fact that the air force has not got the repair men who can do the job, and therefore they have to call in these outside contractors?


Brooke Claxton: This is part of the policy of using civilian contractors wherever it is possible, and where the facilities are not needed for service purposes. If we had air force ground crews to do the job we would use them, but at the present time we will be needing all the facilities we can provide through contracts of this kind and ground crews we can recruit and train to meet the program.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us whether the air force personnel at No. 10 repair depot has been moved or will be moved, or whether it will be an entirely civilian station or a combination of air force personnel and C.P.A. personnel?


Brooke Claxton: There will be a nucleus of service personnel. It is a temporary arrangement and we expect it may last two years. By that time we shall have overtaken other obstacles, and it will have to be reviewed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where in the estimates is
payment provided for these contracts? I have looked through them fairly carefully but I cannot see anything in the nature of a contract for the repair of aircraft. Where in the estimates is that covered?
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Chairman, I have with me a file concerning a French Canadian with 80709-305J
Supply-National Defence thirteen years' service in the air force. He is Flight Lieutenant J. J. Desrochers, regimental number 857.
Some time ago I stated that my compatriots of French origin were not treated with the fairness and respect to which they are entitled by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). The minister replied that he would strive to promote French Canadians who, apart from being bilingual, had the qualifications required.
I was therefore very much surprised to learn about the following facts that I wish to submit to the consideration of the house. Airman Desrochers writes as follows:
On July 4, 1938, having received my B.A. from Laval, I enlisted in the R.C.A.F. as pilot officer, in the permanent force. I shall not give you in detail the history of my military career as supply officer in this service in Canada and overseas. I will point out only that in 1940 1 was not only working to weaken the German effort threatening our rights but to protect the sacred rights of the French tongue.
I paid dearly for my daring. The rank of flight lieutenant I received on May 1, 1940, was my last promotion. From 1942 to October 24, 1950, everyone of my chiefs complained about my services, I had not initiative, I made too many routine mistakes, etc., etc. I fought valiantly but I could not win because I was the only French Canadian in the supply section of the general staff. On July 6, 1950,
I was dismissed on the pretext that I was unable to fulfil the requirements of the service, this after 13 years of service. What a joke I I took off His Majesty's nice blue uniform I had been wearing for thirteen years. As every employer to whom I applied would not believe that I had been discharged from the R.C.A.F. after so many years, without good reasons, as I was unable to find work commensurate with my ability, I had to work with a pick and shovel during the first months following my discharge.
I am sending you, sir, by registered letter, documentary evidence of the facts I have briefly stated in this letter, and I would ask you to be kind enough to return them after perusal.
When you read them, you will see that I have a good working knowledge of English, a prerequisite for advancement according to the hon. Mr. Claxton, who spoke so well when he said: "I assure the hon. member that if there are French-speaking officers who speak both languages, we push them ahead, etc., etc." I was pushed ahead so much, that I found myself on the street, with only a small pension as solace.
Let us now have a look at the actions of this man.
On September 28, 1941, he wrote Squadron Leader Lacoste, No. 3 training command, Montreal.
I would very much like to make you acquainted with the following facts which go once more to prove the oppression of which 1 told you, and which is the lot of a large number of French Canadians who, in good faith, have enlisted in our fine Royal Canadian Air Force.
R-127224, AC2 Marcel Lapointe, a French Canadian, tells me that on waking up this morning he naturally spoke in French to the fellow in the bed

Supply-National Defence next to his, a French Canadian too. Whereupon Corporal Duffield R-57893 came and upbraided him in these words: "Stop talking French at once or I'll report you to camp police! This is a Royal Canadian Air Force camp, and French is forbidden here!"
When you visited Moncton, I gave you a confidential letter which I had addressed to the officer commanding the camp, concerning a public notice prohibiting the use of French in the motor vehicle section.
The commanding officer had the notice removed but he did tell me that he recognized only the Canadian air force's language: English. He also pointed out that such an incident should simply have been reported to the officer commanding that section. I thought an incident of that nature, so dangerous for the relations between soldiers and non-commissioned officers of both races, should immediately be brought to the attention of the camp commandant.
You have approved of my actions and have asked me to inform you directly, in the future, of these unfortunate occurrences.
I am intelligent enough to realize that, by writing directly to headquarters, I am flying in the face of Royal Canadian Air Force rules and will probably run into trouble.
Jean-Jacques Desrochers, Flight Lieutenant.
Here is the document referred to in the preceding letter:
(Text):
To:	Commanding Officer,
No, 8 S.F.T.S.,
Moncton, N.B.
From: Senior Equipment Officer Subject: Personnel of French descent.
1.	It was reported to me yesterday, that on the blackboard of the mechanical transport section, the following order had been expressed in writing: English language only must be spoken around the M.T. section.
2.	I went last night to investigate the matter and saw that it was the truth: The word only had even been underlined twice. The only other language that can be spoken around the M.T. section besides the English language is the French language. Personnel employed in this particular section are as you know, of English descent or of French descent.
3.	I am inclined to believe that the non-commissioned officer in charge of the M.T. section must receive a wonderful co-operation from the French-Canadians working under him if he tolerates an order of such a pernicious nature to be written on his blackboard. The French-Canadians who were there at the time of my visit expressed their feelings very sharply against this oppression.
4.	There is nothing on earth more sacred to any individual, Englishman or Polish, Frenchman or Russian, etc. than his own language. It is the concrete expression of his patriotism. The actual struggle is against an enemy (Nazism) who wants to deprive each nation of this sacred right and also of religious freedom.
5.	It is a sacred duty for me as a French-Canadian officer to report to you, sir, the incident described above for your personal investigation.
Respectfully,
(J. J. Desrochers) FLT. LT.
Senior Equipment Officer No. 8 S.F.T.S.,
Moncton, N.B.

(Translation):
Two letters acknowledging receipt were forwarded to him. The first closed with the following:
Royal Canadian Air Force
Victoriaville, October 1, 1941
Rest assured that I share your views on all this and that I too must struggle fiercely enough to assert our rights. I must admit that here, thanks to a fair degree of co-operation, our people have little to complain about.
Your former assistant F/O Robinson has just joined us here, he speaks highly of you. Since I will necessarily be in close relationship with him, you would do me a good turn if you would advise me, if need be, as to the best way to deal with him in order to secure his fullest co-operation.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) C. E. Lacoste, F/Lt. Accountant Officer,
No. 3 I.T.S., R.C.A.F., Victoriaville, Que.
The second reads as follows:
(Text):
Montreal, October 23rd., 1941 FLT/LT J. J. Desrochers,
No. 8 E.F.T.S.,
R.C.A.F. Moncton, N.B.
My dear J.J.,
I received the letter which you addressed by error to Squadron Leader Lacoste. I can assure you that I immediately took the necessary action to have this matter investigated, and in so doing, did not implicate you in any manner.
1 thank you for passing this information on to me, and I request that you be good enough to inform me of any similar instances which may come to your knowledge in the future.
I can assure you that the authorities are in entire sympathy with all views concerning the subject named in your letter. May I further suggest, that whenever you become acquainted with cases of apparent delayed promotion, concerning French Canadian airmen, will you please inform the parties concerned of the means whereby this may be brought to the attention of their commanding officer. For the necessary action see K.R. (Air) Para. 439 and 439B.
I trust you are well and that all goes well with you.
Yours very truly,
M. Cantin, Squadron Leader.
(Translation):
It was after taking these steps to promote the recognition of the French language in the air force that airman Desrochers seems to have lost the confidence of his superiors. He began having troubles and difficulties. They wanted to compel him to resign and he was told so openly. On May 31, 1943, he wrote as follows:
(Text):
Montreal, P.Q., 31st of May 1943 Commanding Officer,
No. 12 (E) Depot,
Montreal East, P.Q.
I am No. C-857 Flight Lieutenant Jean-Jacques Desrochers, an officer of the permanent active air force commissioned in the said service since the 4th of July, 1938, and actually stationed at No. 12 equipment depot, Montreal East, P.Q.

On the 26th of May, 1943, at 11.30 a.m. I was paraded in your office by my adjutant Flight Lieutenant MacKeown where you gave me in substance the contents of a letter received from headquarters whereas my case had been studied particularly through my confidential reports and as a result I was considered below the average required from an officer holding the rank of Flight Lieutenant (I hold this rank since the 1st of May, 1940) but as my conduct and deportment had been good I was to be given the privilege of asking permission to resign my commission and in the case of my refusing, you were to take immediately the necessary procedure to have me retired from the service.
Strange as it may seem, after five years' service less one month, I was given approximately six hours to give a decision in this vital matter. Well,
I do not consider that applying to resign when I have not at all the intention of doing so and furthermore when I do not feel having deserved such an ultimatum is the right attitude to take in the matter as an officer of His Majesty's forces confident of doing and of having done his duty in the service. So, I hereby protest, giving briefly a short review of my service career, supported by exhibits when required. That, in accordance with K.R. Air Para. 255 Sub. Para. 4.
In January, 1939, I passed the British civil service commission interpreter's exams (English and French) obtaining 167 marks out of a possible 220 marks.
In February, 1939, I was posted on the equipment course given at R.C.A.F. station Trenton, Ont., with four other officers. In the middle of this seven months' duration course, I was sent on temporary duty to M.D. No. 4 in Quebec City with a French Canadian N.C.O. as recruiting officer for the R.C.A.F. Being only two, there is no need to say there was an excessive amount of work to do there.
I was away from my course two months and a half and was finally replaced in Quebec by Pilot Officer Emond. Notwithstanding the fact that I had been away from the course more than two months, I succeeded in my final exams obtaining 69 per cent of the total marks.
From now on, I am an equipment officer and my career really starts.
After my graduation, in September 1939, I was posted with No. 8 (BR) Squadron. This squadron had been sent from Rockcliffe air station, Ottawa, to the coast. So, I stayed three weeks in Rockcliffe and went down to Sydney, Nova Scotia.
I had no practical experience in my trade, having just completed the course and the organization of the equipment section and the supply problems met there were hard to solve due to the very restricted powers of purchase. Wartime financial regulations were not effective yet. Furthermore, the accountant branch had not yet been formed and I was equipment and accountant officer at the same time holding a flight lieutenant's position on the establishment of the squadron with the rank of pilot officer.
While on the strength of this squadron, I was promoted to the rank of flying officer. After seven months of unrelentless work I was replaced by flying officer Mchilney and posted to No. 1 (CAC) squadron. Saint John, New Brunswick. My commanding officer in Sydney, Squadron Leader Brown (now group captain) mentioned on my confidential report that I was a hard worker which pleased me because the staff and I had done a hard job under hard conditions.
At Saint John, New Brunswick, Flying Officer Labelle (now squadron leader) who had just completed his equipment course was posted with me under instructions. This officer now senior to me
Supply-National Defence in rank has been pleased to give me in a letter (see exhibit "A") his opinion looking back at the time he was a flying officer and I a flight lieutenant. I was promoted to the rank of flight lieutenant while at that station which was under the command of Squadron Leader A. Raymond now group captain, commanding officer of No. 2 S.F.T.S., Uplands, Ontario.
I was given a good confidential report by Squadron Leader Raymond and when it was decided to open No. 4 Manning Depot, Quebec City, Squadron Leader Raymond at the time who had been posted there at the opening recommended my posting at that new station.
I organized the equipment section at No. 4 Manning Depot. Posted there around the 1st of September, 1940, on the 5th of November of the same year I was chosen as officer commanding advance party going to open No. 8 S.F.T.S., Moncton, New Brunswick. Squadron Leader Raymond tried to delay my posting but I had to go there immediately.
This station, No. 8 S.F.T.S. was not yet completed. The contractors were still working. I will not emphasize on the hard conditions of work met there during the first month before the arrival of the commanding officer and the main staff. I kept the morale of my men high and obtained from them a maximum of efforts. Let me mention that Flying Officer Robertson posted as my assistant at that station and myself had to work all day, during the first two or three weeks unloading freight cars doing our administrative work only at night in order to cope with the receipts at the beginning.
I am pleased to produce (see exhibit "B") an article published in the "Take-Off" in November, 1942, where the early days of this station are remembered in a true and original way.
I held the position of senior equipment officer in Moncton during fifteen months. This position called for a squadron leader as per establishment. At my departure, on posting to No. 12 equipment depot the commanding officer of the station Wing Commander Brown took the occasion of a mess dinner to mention to all the officers the good work I had done as the first officer posted to No. 8 S.F.T.S. and up to my actual posting to No. 12 (E) depot.
Regardless of all this, I did not receive good reports while at that station. I tried to fight against an anti-French feeling which existed at that station. During all my service with the R.C.A.F. I fought for the respect and the rights of my compatriots and of the French language.
At Moncton, I reported two incidents to the commanding officer: (a) The first one, was the case of No. R127224, AC2 M. Lapointe who, one morning having addressed his bed neighbour, a French-Canadian in French was told by the N.C.O. in charge of the hut that he would report him to the service police of the station if he would use French again. On that instance, the commanding officer reprimanded the N.C.O. in question who was No. R57893 Corporal Duffield. (b) Two, the second was reported to the commanding officer in writing (see exhibit "C"). The pernicious notice was removed upon the commanding officer's order but a stormy interview resulted. I was told that I was very hot about things of that nature and that I was at fault in writing directly to the commanding officer and that in fact the N.C.O. in charge had the right to run his own section.
Finally Wing Commander Brown told me that he had the notice removed but that as far as he was concerned he recognized only one language: the language of the R.C.A.F.
At that moment I knew I was at the wrong door. I wrote to command headquarters and finally got the assurance that the authorities were in full

Supply-National Defence
sympathy with me and that action was taken to prevent any further incident. See exhibits (c) and (d).
What happened? Three months after I am posted to No. 12 (E) depot and this is important to note. After having kept a position of squadron leader during fifteen months I am given a flight lieutenant's position on the establishment of No. 12 (E) depot.
After ten months, around December, 1943, the commanding officer, Wing Commander Wilkins paraded me in his office and after a review of my file told me he would recommend me for the rank of acting Squadron Leader. I did not hear about that till after he left for England when Wing Commander A. H. Mielke paraded me in his office and showed me a report that had already gone to headquarters and back with a letter where he was requested to show me the report so that I could see where my weaknesses were.
Although I was recommended for the promotion I was amazed and depressed at the same time to read that I had trouble to express myself clearly in English and that my posting to a bilingual station was recommended. (Note that 80 per cent approximately of the civilian employees at this depot are of French descent). Note also that I was given 10 official R.C.A.F. investigations, in each case an interpreter would have been needed.
There is no need to say any more to try to explain, it is evident that I am not wanted. The three last monthly confidential reports are not in my favour. It is a fact that from their reading one cannot think that they are such as to determine the authorities to dismiss an officer from the service unless this officer can compare such reports with the ones prepared for his fellow officers.
I will now conclude this already too long report in which I have honestly and sincerely explained my situation and my feelings. As a permanent active air force officer who has been through in his trade the hard periods of organization of the B.C.A.T.P., I protest against a retirement.
(J. J. Desrochers) Flight Lieutenant, No. 12 Equipment Depot,
Montreal East, P.Q.
(Translation):
I shall not read the whole Desrochers file, so as not to delay the business of the house. I shall but mention that on October 11, 1949, that is ten years after the letter I just read, he wrote as follows-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member will speak much longer.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: About three minutes more, Mr. Chairman.
(Text):
The Chief of the Air Staff Air Force Headquarters Ottawa, Ont.
857 F/L Desrochers JJE (Sup)
1.	In accordance with the provisions of AFAO P3/6 Part III paragraph 10, I have read carefully the report made by the AOC AMC in his letter file C-857 (AOC) dated 29 Sept. 1949, on my activities and achievements in the capacity of supply officer at AMC. This report was made following the receipt of an assessment made by my immediate superior S/L M. A. Rosenthal, on myself, on the 31st August, 1949.
(Mr. Gagnon.]
2.	It may be noted that in January, 1949, my whole career had been reviewed closely by the AOC AMC who had made at that time a recommendation for my retention in the service on an R211 dated 21 Jan. 49.
3.	I will not go further into the past as the main purpose of this statement is to express my disagreement on the present report both in principle and in fact.
4.	In principle, my contention is that an officer who has been holding the position and taking the responsibilities such as I have been holding and taking over the past seven months cannot be a man who is, has or shows at the same time as the case may be:
(a)	A weak character
(b)	A lack of aggressiveness
(c)	A passive attitude towards his career
(d)	A poor self-defence
(e)	Ineffective
(f)	Unproductive
(g)	A poor organizer
(h)	Mentally and psychologically incapable
(i)	No initiative
(j)	No ambition
(k)	No ability to improve
(l)	No logic
5.	I regret to say that the above is the moral picture of 857 F/L JJ Desrochers as is found in the above mentioned report. Of course my verdict is subject to caution but I am wholly in favour of referring this question to a psychiatrist and accepting his decision.
(Translation):
I shall not read further from this letter. May I in conclusion say this:
These were the excuses given for the dismissal of Desrochers, after 13 years of continuous service. He was not accused of having failed in his duty on a specific date; he was accused merely of general deficiencies of character which have not been proven at all.
If these deficiencies did exist, why was he kept so long in the air force?
I am inclined to believe, in spite of what the minister may think, that Desrochers was a victim of his devotion to the French-Cana-dian people, his compatriots, and that he paid with his position his love for his people. A thorough and impartial investigation should be made in this matter and I would ask the the minister to have it carried out.
Need I say that facts like these, when they are known, turn the French-Canadian away from a military career?
The best publicity that could be done by the Department of National Defence among the people of Quebec would be to place recruits in a friendly and sympathetic atmosphere. They are entitled to receive orders and training in their own language. Let us recognize that privilege. Upon it rests the future and success of our fighting men in training camps as well as on the battlefield.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word, Mr. Chairman. Officers guilty of resorting to such methods should be cashiered.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Air-Royal' Canadian Air Force-Reserve; civil salaries and wages.
Mr. Fair:: This afternoon I asked a question in connection with housing at Wainwright. When that item was reached I was unavoidably out of the chamber for a short time. Could the minister give that information now?


Brooke Claxton: Contracts are being let for 25 permanent married quarters in this program. They have not been let yet. This is being handled through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They are carrying on negotiations with the town for the acquisition of the land.


[Stage Direction]
Subitem agreed to.
Aerial photographic survey-
Pay and allowances	 $1,124,993
Professional and special services	 11,150
Travelling and removal expenses	 115,509
Freight, express and cartage	 1,000
Printing of departmental reports and
other publications	 1,650
Office stationery, supplies and equipment	 2,280
Materials and supplies	 765,034
Major procurement of equipment		133,500
Repairs and upkeep of equipment	 646,000
Sundries	 12,495
[Stage Direction]
Less-Recoverable from Department of
Mines and Technical Surveys	 940,000
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in connection with aerial surveys that the incident to which I will refer occurred. I think from time to time hon. members are anxious that there shall be less wastage in the air force, the army and the navy than apparently there is from time to time. My attention was drawn to the loss of a couple of aircraft in the Northwest Territories and northern Saskatchewan. One of these was a Canso plane that apparently came down on a lake.


Alphonse Fournier: May I interrupt the hon. member? Would he mind making his remarks tomorrow, at which time this department will be the first called in the morning.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be only a few moments. However, I understand there are two matters two hon. members wish to bring before the house. I do not wish to interfere, and I shall accede to the minister's request.
Supply-National Defence
Subitems stand.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Cleaver:: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I should like to revert to the order for motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the hon. member leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 398, respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada-Mr. Cleaver-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules I and II agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hughes Cleaver: the third reading of the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
sure whether it is on the record that this bill was reported back from the committee on banking and commerce. That should be on the record so that it will be clear that it has been considered.


Hughes Cleaver: It was reported this morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved:: That Bill No. 394, letter V-12 of the Senate, an act for the relief of Marie Elizabeth Rose Ange Cousineau Brousseau, considered today in the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills and reported back to the house, be proceeded with in the customary manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Marie Elizabeth Rose Ange Cousineau Brousseau. -Mr. Winkler.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will
go into supply and consider the rest of the estimates of national defence, then public works, resources and development, citizen-

Business of the House ship and immigration, fisheries, post office, secretary of state, labour, justice, finance, and national revenue. There is no legislation. We hope that by Friday we can complete consideration of the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that the complete list?


Alphonse Fournier: There are a few
more left.


Major James William Coldwell: Why not read those?


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 28, 1951